Minutes-PC 1963/03/18City Hall
Anaheim, Caiifornia
March 18, 1963
R~G[IU1R N1B8TING OF THH ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COhAlISSION
RHGULAR MBHTING - A Regu2ar Meeting of Lhe Anaheim City Planning Com:nission wa.s
called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 0•Clock P.M., a quorum
being present.
PRBSBNT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall.
COhAiiSSI4NI~tS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Pebley, Perry,
Sides.
ABSBNT - COhAlIS~30NBRS: None.
PRBSENT - ZC~NING COORDINATOR: Martin K=eidt.
DEPUTY CI1Y AITORNBY: Purman Roberts.
PII~HNING COhAiISSION SHCkBTARY: Ann Krebs.
INVOCATION - Reverend Ray S. Jones, pastor of Knott Avenue Christian Church,
gave the Invocation.
PLSDCS OP - Commissioner Sides led the Pledge of Aliegiance to the Plag,
ALLBGIANCH
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meetings of Pebruary 18 and March 4, 1963, were
TEffi MINUTI3S approved as submitted.
PBTITIOAIDR'S - Chairman Mungall requested that Deputy City Attorney~ Furman
RIGHTS Roberts, review the rights of n petitioner in the granting and/or
denial of a Conditional Use Permit, Variance or Reclassi£ication,
tP~at this would be done at the t~eginning of the meeting, and that
if the regular schedul~d meeting was adjourned for diuner it would again be recited at
the beginning of the adjourned meeting in the eveaing.
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUBLIC }IBARING. STANI~ARD OIL COMPANY OP CALIPORNIA,
PffitMIT N0. 266 605 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles 54, Californ:a~ Owners;
POSTER AND BI.HISffit~ 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles
7, California, Ageats; requesiing permission to BUILD TWO 10 POOT
BY 25 POOT 3TBHL BILLBQARDS on property dascribed as; An irregulur parcel of land at
the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, with a 200 foot frontage on -
both sides, and further described as 9012 Beach Boulevard, Property preseatly ciassi=
fied as C-'s, H$AVY COD9~IYiRCIAL, 20I~ffi.
Subje~t petition was coptinued from the meetings of July 9~ September 5, October 1,
October 29, 1962~ and January 7, 1963 in order to ailow the City Attorney~s Office
sufficient time to formulate the Billboard Ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney John Dawson, reviewed for the Commissioa the progress being
made regarding the Sign Osdinance. Mr. Dawsoa fur:her stated that the proposed
billboards as such should be considered along with the Sign Ordinance;that further
discussion was being delayed until all City departments had voiced their opinion and~
comments regardiag the proposed 3ign Ordinance; that it was tentatively decided to
ciassify all signs into four categories, (1) chan~e copp signs,(2) business product
signs (standards set forth in the Citq of San Diego Ordinance would be substa,ntialiy
used), (3) real estate''type signa which would be temporary,(4) sigas errected which
- 1441 -
_... __„
z ,. _
- - . l . _ . . _ ...~
~ . ... . . ,.. . :.~ ~
~
~
~
I
CONDITIONAL U3H - would heip traffic regulations.
PffitMIT N0. 266
(Continued) Commissioner Pebley inquired whether it would be in order to
postpone subject petition so that futher discussion regarding the
four (4) categories of signs caight be considered at a work session.
Mr. Dawaon then informed the Commission that this would Ue a satisfactory arrangement
with the City Attorney's Office.
The Cormaission discussed the length of time needed to resolve all problems relative to
the Sign Ordinance, that it might be in order for the Commission to recommend changes
to the City Council, and that in order to allow each department sufficient time to
render a decision, subject petitioa should be continued for at lea.st eight weeks.
Chairman Mungall stated that, in his opinion he did not Eeel a billboard was the
proper vehicle for the proposed location.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use
petmit No. 266 to the meeting of May 13, 1963, in order to allow the Pianning Commission
sufficient time to re-evaluate evidence presented to them regarding a Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USB - CONTINUBD PUHLIC F~ARING. GORDON L. HODGII, 18681 Crescent Drive,
pBRMIT N0. 356 Anaheim, California, Owner; NBIL RHITMAN, 10582 We~t Katella Avenue,
Anaheim, California, Agent; reqaesting permission to CONSIRUCT A
97-UNIT DffiUXH MOTBL on property described as: A rectangular
parcel of land with a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and a
depth of approximately 600 feet, the western boundary of said property being 669 feet
east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as 2748 West Lincoln
Avenue. Property presently classified as R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZOI~.
Subject petitioa was continued from the meeting of February 4, 1963, in order to
allow the petitioner an opportunity to submit revised plot plans:
Mr. Gordon L. Hodge, the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and stated he had
nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration, but would be glad to
answer any questions the Commission might have.
Chairaian Mungall inquired whether anyone was present in the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition and received no reply.
THB HBARING WAS CL0.SSD.
:~.
f
The Commission reviewed the plot plans presented noting that Development Review
reco~ended a aumber of changes, namely, relocation of the east, west, and south
structures to the property line, and the elimination of one parking space at the
southeast corner of subject property to permit adequate turn-around for trash truck
pickup and fire equipmeat.
The petitione= stated that he would abide by any regulations thz Co~ission might
deaire, and then reviewed the plot plans with the Commission noting the proposed
changes.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 674, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Craig, to grant Petition for Conditional
Uae Permit No, 356, subject to two (2) condioions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CObAlISSION~tS.: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebleq, Perry, Si~les
NC1H3: C~4~lISSIONffitS : None .
A83ffiVT: CCY~MI~3SIOIVffitS: None.
~
~ . .
„
- - --~- - -- . . - ~_... ..~:.~~:.~:r ~
, . t .._- -
~, ~ ~
~~
MINUTH9~ CITY PLANNING COI~AiISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1442
~
~
I
~
MINUTffi, CITY PLANNING CJFAII3SION, March 18, 1963, Continued:
1443
RBCIASSIPICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HBARING. EMPIRB FINANCIAL CORPQRATION,
N0. 62-63-64 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; requesting
that property described as: ltvo rectangular portions of land.
CONDITIONAL USB Portion "A" having a frontage of 333 feet on the south side of
PffitMIT N0. 357 Lincoln Avenue, and a depth of 255 feet. Portion ••B" having a
width of 333 feet, and a depth of 1,019 feet. The northerly
TENTATIVB MAP OP boundary of Portion "B" being adjacent to the southerly boundary of
TRACT N0. 4230 Portion "A". The easterly bouadary of Portions'A" and "B" being
approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Soulevard.
Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGAICULNRAL, ZONB.
Subject Petitions and Tentative Map of Tract No, 4230 were continued from the meetings
of February 4 and Pebruary 18, 1963, at the request of the petitioner.
RBQUHSTHD CLASSIPICATION: C-1, NHIGHBORAOOD C0I~4dMSRCIAL, ZONB, for Portion
"A", and R-3, MULTIPLfi PAMZLY RBSIDENTIAL, ZONH,
for Portion "B".
RBQUBST$D CONDITIONAL USS: TO CONSIRUCT A 1W0-STORY PLANNBD MULT3PLB FAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAL DBVBLOPMSNT AND WAIVHR OP THE SINGLS-
ST(I~RY HBIGHT LIMITATIUN FOR PORTION "B".
SUBJfiCT TRACT CONTAINS 33 PROPOSED R-3, kNLTIPLB PAh7ILY P.BSIDBIVTIAL, AND OIV&
(1) PROPOSHD C-1, NBIGHB~tH00D CODMBRCIAL, ZC:.B, LOTS.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a letter addresse~~ to the Commission from the
Bmpire Pinancial Corporation, dated Pebruary 20, 1963, in which the pet~tioners
requested an additional two weeks to provide time for completion of negotiatiocs with
the property owners to the east of subject property for the purpose of joint partici-
pation of a dedicated street, and further read an additional letter from the petitioners
requesting an additional continuance until the aforesaid negotiatiois Here completed,
subject ietter being dated March 12, 1963. This request also stated that plans would
be submitted to the Planning Department on March 22, 1963.
The Commission discussed the legality of the continuance of a tract map for the number
of weeks snbjec: :rsc: h»d ~er. coati:»ed; whether the Commission should consider the
tract before any public hearing on the Reclassification; that if subject tract were
denied.by the'Coumission, the petitioner would have the right of appeal to the City
Council; and then inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, the legality of
continuances for subject tract since they were to be heard in conjunction with the
Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Roberts stated that he would need a little time for consideration to determiae what
could be done legaily regarding subject tract, and asked that the Commission postpone
any action on subject petition until later in the meeting.
Mr. Kreidt then advised the Commission that possibly the architect for the developer
could be contacted for verbal affirmation, as well as, an explanation for the many
continuances reqi;ested by the petitioner.
(Approximately one hour later.)
Mr. Robert Fish, architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that the reason for the request was because it had taken considerable time for
the lessee of the Baker property to the east of subject property to negotiate a lease;
that the continuance was requested in order that subject property and the petition for
reclassification of the•Baker property could be considered jointly, although, under a
differ~nt reclassification number,and that he understood that plans for development of
the easterly property would be in the Planning Department on Priday, March 22, 1963,
The Commission discussed the possibility of a two weeks or four weeks continuance and
determined that if a pet;tion for the property to the east of subject property were
filed on Priday, March 22, 1963, this would not be scheduled before the Commission
before April 15~ 1963. ,
~~
i .
-- --i-----____ _.~_ _„ ---- - -.~,w~~,.,~~- .
1 . , ~.- -, _ . . . _ . ._ ~
~' ~` ~
RBCIA3SIPICATION - Mr. Robests advised the Commission that subject tract couid be
N0. 62-63-64 heard in conjunction with the two petitions without violating th
State Subdivision Act,
CONDITIONAL USH
PHRMIT N0. 357 Commissioner Gaue; offered a motion to continue petitions for
Reclassification No. 62-63-64, Conditional Use Permit No. 357~
TBNTATIVB MAP OF and Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230, to the meeting of
1RACT N0. 4230 April 15, 1963, in order tiiat subject petitions might be
(CONTINUHD) considered in conjunction with a proposed peti#ion for reclassi-
fication of property to the east of subject property.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD,
RBCIASSIFICATION CONTINUHD PUBLIC H&ARING: RUSSELL MOORE, 11752, Garden Grove
N0. 62-63-69 Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owner; BUILDBR SERVICB
UNLIMITHD, 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California,
CONDITIONAL USE Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangular
PffitMIT N0. 367 parcel of land having a frontage of 140 feet on the west side of
Beach Boulevard, and a depth of 620 feet, the southerly boundary
of said property being approximately 1,290 feet north of Ball
Road, and further described as 727 South Heach Boulevard. Property presently
classified as R-~A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
CONSIRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 44 PLANNHD MULTTPLB
PAMILY RBSIDffiVTIAL DBVHLOPMENT - WAIVB ONB-STORY
HBIGH'T LIMITATION.
Subject petition was continued from the meetiag of February 18, 1963,
of the petitioner, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to
plot plans.
Mr. Russell Moore, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
would like to have a two w~ek continuance of Reclassification No, 62-63-69 and
Conditionai Use Permit No. 367, and statedkus reason was that both the developer and
the architect had been ill and thus he was unable to have completed revised plans for
the Commission's consideration at this meeting, and that he hoped to have the revised
pians delivered to the Planning Department by Wednesday, March 20, 1963.
Commissioner Alired offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassification
No. 62-63-69 and Conditional Use Permit No. 367 to the meeting of April 1, 1963,
permit the petitioner additional time to submit revised plot plans. Commissioner
Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHVI3HD
TffiVTATIVB MAP OF - OiVNBR: GAYt-LO, INC., 921 West Heverly Boulevard, Montebello,
1RACT NO. 4958 Califoraia. BNGINHBR: RBhAfERBR HNGINHBRING COMPANY, INC.,
145 Nprth Painter Avenue, Whittier, California. Subject tract is
located on the north side of Santa Ana Canyan Road, on the west
side of ImperYal Highway, and•conicains 199 proposed R-1, One
Family Residential, Zone, lots.
Mr. Hdward Mozer, representing the engineer, appeared before
he would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might
The Commission reviewed the tract map, and noted that two access roads were indicated
and inquired if the developer intended to cons:~uct a bridge across the Santa Ana
Valley Irrigation Company Canal at the terminai of each of these access roads, and
whether an additional access road might be projected midway in the tract. Mr, Mozer
replied, that although it was only sketched in lightly on the map, it was the
intention of the developer to construct the bridges which would provide access to
Santa Ana Canyon Road, and that the third access road would not be approved by the
Division of Highways of the State because it had been difficult to obtain the two to
Santa Ana Canyon Road, considered a freeway by the State.
~~
~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COHMISSION, March 18, 1963, Coatinued: 1445
RHVI3BD - Zoning Cnordinator Martin $reidt, informed the Co~ission that the
TBNTATIVE MAP OP developer would be required to obtain approval from the State for
1RACT N0. 4958 the access points indicated, that said access would have to be
dedicated to the State, and that if bridges were to be constructed
across the SAVI Canal, easements would be required for access
across the canal.
Mr. Kreidt further stated that at the Interdepa=tmental CommittEe meeting it was feit
that two access xoads would be adequate to serve a subdivision co~sisting of 199 homes,
and that the engineer had indicated then that bridges would be constructed across the
canal.
Purther discussion was held by the Commission as to the feasibility of requiring an
additional access road, but upon being advised by Mr. Kreidt that the State Department
~of Highways would not grant more than two access roads to a road considered a freeway,
that an additional bridge might increase the cost of each home, and that an average of
150 cars per access road was not excessive, concluded the discussion.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 4958,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to ~-~nnexation to the City of Anaheim.
2. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. Disposal of the drainage shall be by provisions into the Santa Ana River, with the
approval of the Orange County Flood Control District and the Orange County Water
District.
4, At locations where the property ownership is contiguous to Santa Ana Canyon Road,
the developer shall install standard streei improvements, and at street outlets at
crossings of the SAVI, easements shall be provided.
5. If this tract is not developed in its entirety, the developer shali provide utility
easements as necessary to provide service as required by the City of Anaheim.
6. The alignment of the Riverside Freeway and access to Santa Ana Canyoa Road shall be
subject to the approval of the State Division of Highways.
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
RBVISBD - DSVffiOPBR: W. H. JBWBTT, 1141 Hast Ash, Pullerton, California.
TBNTATIVB MAP OF HNGINHffit: RICHARD L. BIAIR, 416 West Amerige, Pullerton, Cali-
~tACT N0. 5078 fornia, Subject tract is located on the north side of La Palma
Avenue, approximately 4,238 feet east of Dowling Street, aad
covering approximately 9.? acres, is proposed for subdivision into
twenty-one (21) M-1, Light Industrial, and P-L, Parking-Landscaping, Zone, lots.
Mr. Richard Blair, engineer for subject tract appeared before the Commission and stated
that the proposed tract would be developed for small and medium size industrial
buildings of 16,000 to 18,000 square feet, that ;.he site development pian would conform
to the present industrial development in the area, that standard curb and gutters were
proposed instead of the usual industrial gutters, and that the proposed developmenL
would be similar to iadustrial construction in the City of Fullerton.
Zoning Ccordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the location of sub,ject tract map, noting that
it was located in the Northeast Industrial Area.
,, • ' . ~_: ~_ . . . __. _ .
~ ~ •
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COD4~iIS$ION, March 18, 1963, Coatin+ec~: 1446
RSVISED - Commissioner Gauer offered a motioz: t~~ ar:;~::'v:r '.evised Tentative
THNTATIVS MAP OF Map of Tract No. 5078, subject to c~c `01`<>':,:.'::;. :=enditions:
TRACT N0. 5078
(Continued) 1. Subject to the reclassification c~" :FUtsyc~.E ~.~roperty to the M-1,
Light Industrial and P-L, Parking-Landscssping, 2ones, in •
accordance with the provisions of Reclassification No. 61-62-69.
2. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub~ivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. Alley cut-offs shall conform to the City of Anaheim Aliey Intersection Design.
Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
TBNTATIVB MAP OP - SUBDIVIDER: V. J. SHItADBR, 6700 Stanton Avenue, Buena Park, Cali-
1RACT N0. 5081 for~aia. BNGIAffiBA: M~DANIHL BNGINHBRING COMPANY, 222 Bast Lincola
Aveizue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract is located on the west
sid~e of Sunkist Street, approximately 530.20 feet north of Lincoln
Avenue, and contains 83 proposed R-1, One Ramily Residential, Zone, lots.
Mr. John Jacobson, representing the eagineer, appeared before the Commission •.~-i stated
that he ~va~ availwbie to ansrrer 3*.ty questions the Commission might have.
The Commission inquired whether the engineer had any knowledge as to the ultimate
disposal of the orange trees located on subject propexty or whether there was any
intention of keeping some of them.
Mr. Jacobson in reply, stated that he had no knowledge as to the fate of the orange
trees, but that from past experience, orange trees were more of a nuisance than a
benefit when landscaping was iristalled, because of the variation in upkeep for the trees
in comparison with the other landscaping.
Commissioner Gauer noted that the Commission would have to take action later in
reference to the street designation for Center Street, east of State Coilege Boulevard,
as it pertained to the circulation of the proposed General Plan.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 5081, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Requirement that should this subdivisioa be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvai.
2, Drainage shali be handled in a manner which is satisfactory~to the City Bngineer.
3, Provide dedication for the realignment of New Avenue, south of Ward Terrace.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CRRRIHD.
~
~
RHCOMMHIVDATION - RBU~TIVH TO TI~ AMBNDMHNT OP TF~ CIRCULATION BLBMHNT
Tp ~ pp.THB GHNHRAL PIAN OF STRB815 AND HIGHWAYS.
CITY COUL7CIL
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 694, Series 1962-63, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos
to recommend to the City Councii that Center Street, between State
Co:Llege Boulevard and Sunkist Street, be deleted from the circulation
element of the General Plan of Streets and Highways changing said
• street as presently designated from an arterial street.
On roll call the foregoing resolution wsxs passed by the foliowing vote:
AXHS: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Yerry, Sides.
NOHS: COI~AtISSIONBItS: None.
pBgBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
. `
1
._ ~-i . '._'_ . __ ~~~ _ . . ~ . ~
~ r . . ..
_ . , .. .,., . ~
I .. ' ~.~ , . ~. . .. .. •
~ ~ ~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObA4ISSI0N~ March 18, 1963, Continued: 1447
VARIANCH N0. 1554 - PUBLIC HBARING. MR. and MRS. PAUL MITTbWNN, 748 North Pine Street,
Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to WqIVB THB
RHQUIRBD BIGHT (8) FOOT DISTANCB B&1WHEN A MAIN BUILDING AND AN
ACCBSSORY BUILDING TO PffitMIT TH& COdVS1RUCTION OF A PAMILY ROOM on property described as:
A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 65 feet on the east side o€ Pine
Street, and a depth of 108 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being a.pproxi-
mately 155 feet south of the centerline of North Street, and further described as
748 North Pine Street. Property presently Classified R-1, One Family Residential, Zone.
Mr. Paul Mittman, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had
nothing further to add for the Commission's consideration, but would be glad to answer
any yuestions.
Chairman Muagall inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition, and received no reply.
THS HBAltING WAS CLOSSD.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans as presented.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 675, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adc~tion, seconded by Commissioner Peb7.ey, to grant Petition for
Variance No. 1554, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; ~
AYBS: COMh1ISSI0NBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, blungall, Pebiey, Perry, Sides,
NOES: COA9dISSIONBRS: None.
ABSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
VARIANC& N0. 1556 - PUBLIC HBARING. RAYMOND F. KLEIN, 535 Victor, Anaheim, California,
Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH THE ONE AND ONH-QUARTBR (l4)
PARKING SPACH PER DWBLLING UNIT REQUIRMSNT, on property described
as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 50 feet on the south side of
Cypress Street, and a frontage cf 130 feet on the east side of Santa Fe Street, and
further described as 500 and 502 Bast Cypress Street, and 218 North Santa Fe Street.
Property presently classified R--3, Multiple Pamily Residential, Zone.
Mr. Raymond $lein, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that he
was available to answer any questions the Commission might have.
The Commission noted that they had viewed subject property during their field inspection
trip of that morning; that the elevations presented were not to the Commission's liking
and asked of the petitioner whether the front portion of the development would be
stucco or rock; whether plans could not be submitted to improve the proposed development,
and whether the proposed development would be similar to the multiple family development
to the sovth of subject property.
The petitioner repiied that he was proposing stuGCO for the front of subject property,
and that the proposed development would be similar to the one to the south, as well as,
the multiple family development to the east.
Commissioner Chavos stated that it was the desire of the City to improve the area in
which subject property is located, and that the plot plans as presented were
undesirabie.
Commissioner Perry stated that the Commission should see plans which would indicate
what the Commission might expect to see, rather than approviag plans as indefinite as
those submitted.
;
I '~
~ _--~"'
.~..
~
--- - ~-.._ - . _ -- ---
~~ ;~ ~
~~ , • .
~ ~
;dINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C0~4riIS3I0N, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1448
1 VARIANCB N0. 1556 - The Commission fu=ther discussed the reasons for the petitioner
' (Continued) not submitting proper or compiete plot plans noting that perhaps
the petitioner was desirous of knowing the Commi.ssion's thinking
! regarding the waiver of parking requirements since development of
said property, as weli as, the purchase of the property was contingent upon said
waiver; that plans should be submitted indicating improved elevations; and that if the
Commission granted subject petition~ requirements be stipulated as to the submission
~ of revised plans for the Commission's consideration.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Rreidt, stated that the petitioner could submit revised plans
for the Commission's consideration at a later date, but that it need,not be doae at a
public hearing.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject
petition, and receive@ no reply.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 676, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides to grant Petition for Jariance No. 1556,
subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Camp in offering the foregoing resolution stated that as a condition to
approval, the petition~2r must submit revised elevations to the Planning Commission no
later than April 1, 1963 meeting, which would indicate a gabied or knuckled roof.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: CObAtISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Sides.
NQB3: COhA~IISSI0NBR3: None.
ABSSNT: CObAfISSI0N8RS: None.
~
VARIANCB N0. 1557 - PUBLIC FffiARING. LOUIS C. and PRANCSSB L. ~ARSON, 338 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; DAN L. ROWIAND, A.I,A.,
617 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to BSTABLISH A PRINTING SHOP, AND WAIVB PARICING RHQUIRBMBNTS on property
described as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 63 feet on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 125 feet,the westeriy boundary of said property
being 98 feet, plus or minus, east of the centerline of Melrose Street, and further
described as 506 Bast Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C•-2, General
Commercial, Zone.
Mr. Dan Rowland, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that fihe petitioner had a printing sh o p at another location for the past 17 years;
that the request for a waiver of parking requirements was based on the premise that
12 parking spaces were already provided on the property; that parking mas permitted on
the.Lincoln 9venue frontage through park.ing meters; apd that this amaunt of parking
space was mose than the petitione= would require in the fe=eseeable futuse. ~
The Commission inquired of the agent for the petitioner the number of employees
proposed to be employed at the new establishment, to which Air. Rowland replied, that a
maximum of 5 persons would be employed, that oniy 4 were presently employed; that there
would not be an appreciabie change~since the printer had been established for 18 years
in the City; thus being indicative of the amount of business be able to project for the
future; and that a sixty-five (65) foot alley extended from the intersection.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans as submitted.
Commissioner Chavos left the Councii Chamber at 3;10 P.M.
,,,~
i
-- -- _._~~. _,_, . .' . _. ..__..
~
~
~
~~
MINUTSS, CITY PLANNING COh4~lISSION, Mar~h 18, 1963, Continued:
C~
1449
VAFiIANCB N0. 1557 - Chairman Mungal~i i•nquired if there was anyone in the Council
(Continued) Chamber opposing subject petition, and received no reply.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 677, Series 1962-63,
and moved for its passage and adoption seconded by Commissioner Allred, to approve
Petit•ion for Variance No. 1557, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On i.oli call the foregoing resolution was passed uy the following vote:
pYSS: CODiMISSIOlVffitS: Allred, Camp, Craig, Gaue , Mungall, Yebley, Perry, Sides.
AYSS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSffiVT: COMMISSIONBRS~: Chavos.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HHARING. MRS. HLISB FRITZ, 407 South State College Boulevard,
PERMIT N0. 385 Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to B3TABLISH A
CHILDRHN'S DAY NURSHRY on property described as: An irregular
parcel of land having a frontage of 190 feet, plus or minus, on the
west side of State Coliege Boulevard and a depth of ].20 feet, plus or minus, the southerly
boundary of said property being approximately 217 feet north of the centerline of
Santa Ana Street, and further described as 407 South State College Boulevard. Property
presently classified R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a letter received from the petitioner, in which
she requested withdrar-~ f her petition, stating that she had been negotiating for a
steakhouse on the bal:. ~.c of the property, but that the lessee's for the steakhouse
felt that they would require the entire parcel for the projected building and parking
facilities.
Commissioner Caop offered a motion to accept withdrawal of Petition for Conditioaal
Use Permit No. 385, as requested by the petitioner. Commissioner Allred seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRISD.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HHAitING. AMffiLICAN PHOHNIX CORPORATION, 320 Park Avenue,
PffitMIT N0, 386 New York 22, New York, Owners; PfiTffit PLOURNOY, P. 0. Box 2367,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permissioa to BSTABLISH A
PUBLICITY AND PUSLIC RSIATIONS SBRVICH AND OTHBR RHIATED FACILITIBS
on property described as: A rectangular portion of land consisting of two parcels,
said property ha~iag a:rcnt~ge of 253 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, and
a depth of 600 feet, plus or minus, the southerly boundary of said property being
approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of Freedman Way, and further described
as 1650 South Harbor Boulevard, Property presently classified R-A, Residential
pgricultural, Zone.
Mr. Carl Hatfield, representing the authorized agent, appeared before the Commission
and stated that he had nothing further for the Commission's consid~ration, but would be
willing to answer any questions they might have.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether the petitioners public relations business was
confined to the Disneyland area.
Mr. Hatfield replied that. approximately 80°Jo of th:: public relations business would be
within the described area.
The Commission inquired whether the petitioner proposed 4o have any advertising signs,
to which Mr. Hatfield replied that the only sign to be displayed would be on the office
door within the Saga Motel.
:.~.
~
i
/
--r------- _- ~ .
, ~ _ .... . . _. ..._.
~
•J
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued;
~
1
1450
CONDITIONAL USB - Further inquiry by the Commission of the agent for the petitioner
PBRMIT N0. 386 requesting how a public relations husiness could be related to the
(Continued) business established in the Disneyland area.
Mr. Hatfield stated that one of the many things that his establish-
ment did was handle the publicity for conventions in the city; that they contacted the
Convention Committee to determine what was planned, the basic geal of the proposed
establishment would be to advertise the advantages of staying in the City of Anaheim
area; the services offered by the hotels and motels in the area, and uther facilities
availahle to conventioneers.
Upon inquiry by the Commission as to the number of employees planned, Mr. Hatfield
stated four (4) employees were being projected for the establishment; and that the Saga
Motel wouid provide parking facilities for these four (4) employees.
The Commission inquired whether any outside business was solicited by the proposed
estabiishment, and whether the prop:::_~ business would be detrimental to the Disneyland
area, to which Mr. Hatfield replied, that the only soliciting that would be done would
be for business coming into the Disneyland area or into the City of Anaheim, and that
it wouid complement rather than act as a detriment to the Disneyland area.
Commissioner Perry stated that he felt the proposed public relations business would be
compatible to the Disneyland area.
Commissioner Pebley stated that the proposed public relatier.; ~~usiness would be an
asset and an aid to the area by publicizing what could be oi.`:•red to visitors to the
City.
Commissioner Camp stated that the proposed public relations services which wili be
rendered, would be an asset to the functioning of the Disaeyland area; #hat the
services would complement the existing services being rendered •by the establishments in
the Disneyland area, and would constitute a"tourist related use integrated within a
primary use complex", which would be an incidental service not only to the primary use
complex in which it was located, but to other primary uses (hotel and motel uses)
established in the Disneyland area.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was any opposition in the Council Chamber to
subject petition, and received no reply,
HBARING ,WAS CLOSBD ~,~ ~ /~L'~~ ~ ~ 3 0 ~~' .
~sC.a_.v-e~-eJ
Commissi.oner perry offered Resolution No, 678, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to grant Petition fcr Conditional
Use Permit No, 386, subject to coaditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Perry in offezing the foregoing resolution stated that the public
relations service proposed would an asset to the functic~s of the Disneyland area, and
would constitute a tourist related use integrated within the primary uses into other
uses in the Disneyland area.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: CON9~SISSIONSRS: Allred, Camp, Craig, Gauez, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOBS: COI~AtISSIONBRS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
AB3TAIN: CObAlI3SIONHRS: Chavos.
-r-- - - - -- - `6 ~!.
~ , - E_. _ _ ..._
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued; 4151
CONDITIONAL USH - pUBLIC I~RING. FRANg W. SACRBTT~ Owner; c/o L-G-S Corporation,
PBRMIT N0. 387 2120 South Main Street, Santa Ana, California, Lessee;
CHARLBS G. SCHLSGEL, 433 West Bighth Street, Santa Ana, California,
Agent; requesting permission to CONSTRUCT A SffitVICH STATION AND A
PitIVB-IN OR WALK-i3P RBSTAURANT on property described as: An irregular parcel of land
~.iaving a frontage of 200 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, a frontage of
228 feet on the north side of Wilshire Avenue, and an average depth of 500 feet, pius
or minus, the easteriy boundary of said property being approximately 485 feet west of
Carleton Avenue. Property presently classified R A, Residential Agricultural, Zoa2,
Mr. Charles Schlegel, attorney represeating the petition, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he was leasing the property from the petitioaer, and that he
would be available to answer anv auestions the Commission mieht have_
The Commission aoted that one of the items that came to their attention during the
field trip was that Wilshire Street was a heavily traveled street; that the proposed
development would increase the traffic problems; and that dedication of access rights
to Wishire Street might solve the probiem if ingre3s and egress were only permitted
from Lincoln Avenue; that it might be difficult for the petitioner to obtain sufficient
business if ingress and egress to the service statioa were limited to Lincoln Avenue.
Mr. Schiegel stated that he plans to develop along the lines which would interest
lessee's or propose a frontage street; and upon being questioned by the Commission as to
the lessee's who had agreed to lease subject property; Mr. Schlegel replied that for
over a year and a half the leasing agents had proposed and prepared the best possible
uses for the area; that presently the Union Oil Company was interested in the site as
weil as Oscar~s Restaurant; and that future development for the northerly portion of
the property would include miscellaneous shops and garden-type apartments.
The Commission discussed the possibility of widening Wilshire Avenue to one more lane
in order to provide a sort of off ramp for ingress and egress to the service station
and the drive-in proposed, and inquired whether this would be ia comflict with the
plans that the petitioner had.
Mr. Schlegel stated that it would be impossible to dedicate a portion of the property
to widen Wilshire Avenue with the plans that had submitted with subject pe4ition.
Mr. Lewis Weir, representing the Union Oil Company, appeare3 before the Commission and
stated that it would take further study on their part to determine whether dedication
would be feasible; that they anticipated that the service station would be set back
ten (10) feet; that the traffic problem had been anal}~zed; and that although they
realized the traffic was heavy under present conditions and would increase with the
proposed development, they feit that subject petition might be approve.
Mr. Art Daw, representing the Bngineering Department, advised the Commission that at
the Interdepartmental Committee meeting a discussion was held with the Traffic
Hngineer regarding the heavy traffic: on Wilshi.re AWenue, and that the thought of an
additional lane was only broached in tentative form.
` Upon inquiry by the Commission ~s to provisions being made for a left turn off Lincoln
Avenue going east, Mr. Dart replied that said left tnrn would be impossible acsoss the
breath and length of Lincoln Avenue into subject property; and that it was felt that
some day the City would errect a barrier at that end in order to prohibit a left turn
into Wilshire Avenue.
Mr. Schlegel stated that he did not feel that the petitioner, Mr. Sackett, would agree
to dzdication for street widening purposes other than what was presently proposed for
Lincoln Avenue, and that only side walks were anticipated for that frontage.
I
', . ,~_ . - ~.
..,~
~ '~ •
~~
4
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAlISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1452
CONDITIONAL USH - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt', stated t:hat the restaurant being
PIDtMIT N0. 387 proposed as a drive-in would have to be cunsidered under a
(Continued) reclassification; that the property was presently classified
residential agricultural; that a previous reclassification for
neighborhood commercial development of subject property as approved
under Resolution of Intent No. 5769, by the City Council for Reclassification
No. F-59-60 59 on subject property, none of the conditions of approval were met, all of
these conditions being deed restrictions limiting the C-1 uses.
Mr. Rreidt further stated that the subject petition for Conditionl Use Permit, therefore,
could only apply to the service station since the service station was permitted under a
conditional use permit under a R-A zone, but that any other development would require
either the compliance with coaditions as stated ia approval of Reclassification
No. F-59-60-59 or the filing of a new petition for reclassification, and that nothing
could be built on subject property until the conditions had been completed and an
Ordinance had been read.
Mr. Rreidt further advised the Commission that subject petition could be approved
subject to reclassification of the property to its proper zone, and that said
reciassification have specific deed restrictions limiting the uses for the property.
Mr. Schlegel inquired of the Commission what could be done in order to expedite
leasing of the property tothe Oil Company, and was infora<~d that the Conditional Use Permit
would only cover a portion of the property for use as a service station; that if :iie
Commission approved the service station site it would be necessary for the petitioner to
appear before the City Council submitting revised plans with plans for the entire
property with an agreement by the petitioner to conform with the conditions imposed
under said reclassification, and that upon meeting all of these conditions, this would
then clear the way for granting of said Conditional Use Permit.
It was noted by the Commission that the original reclassification would effect the
entire parcel of property extending almost 500 feet to the north; that if only the
service station were approved by the Commission and the City Council, this might land-
lock the property to the north and that it might be beneficial to the petitioner if he
consulted with the Planning Department to work on revised plans which would incorporate
complete development of the entire parcel.
Mr. Kreidt then stated that the Commission might approve the service station in the
Residential Agricultural, Zone~ and recommend to the City Council that other petitions
pending on subject property be terminated; that the restaurant would require a
reclassification to C-2, but was not permitted in a C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone
as pending reclassification of subject property was requested; and that multiple
family development to the rear of subject property could not be approved under the
pending reclassification.
Mr. Vernon L. Fredrick, 5602 Van Buren, Yorba-Linda, appeared before the Commission in
opposition to subject petition, and stated that he was concerned about an alley to the
north of Diamond Street which had a stub-end on the easterly part of subject property;
that a similar alley was to the north of the shops on Lincoln Avenue, also stubbing
into the easterly portion of subject property; that~Diamoad Street might be open'to
pickup additional traffic from a pxoposed development of the northerly portioa of
subject property; and that it would be of some concern if alleps to the north of the
C-2 property fronting on Lincoln Avenue were opened up to subject property for ingress
and egress because said alley was too narrow for other than pickup and delivery of
supplies and trash truck.
Upon comment by Co~nissioner Pebley as to proF~sing extention of the alley, Mr, Predricks
said that stubbing the alley to the nort:i of Lineoln Avenueforcoa~ercial development was
set up that way in order to prevent an~y usage of said alley for develo~;ment of the
westerly portion or subject property.
Commissioner pilred stated that it was no'c within the power of the Commission to reguire
4he petitioner to present ingress and egress to the service station for extension of
the alley for trash Qickup purposes; and that a masonry wall might be the iogical
solution to said wall to terminate at thz south side of subject property, north of
Lincoln Avenue, thus biocking off the alley.
THB F~ARII~ WA3 CLOSHD.
~
. , ,.. _,~_ ; .~. ----- . - -- - - ---- ~~ ~.- .. . . . . . _ ~' .._._.__ '
~
~ ~~ ~
~4
!
MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1453
CONDITIONAL U3H - The Commission further discussed the Resolution of Intent conditioas
P&RMIT N0. 387 as stipulated in Reclassification No. F-59-60-59.
(Continued)
Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that one of the coaditions was a
masonry wall.
~e Commission discussed the po~sibility of a 30 foot easement and the easterly portion
of subject property with both alleys opening on to said easement; that this might
create considerably more traffic through the service ~tation than should be allowed;
that if property on the northerly portion were developed for multiple family use.
traffic emanating from said development wc+ald have ingsess and egress via Pearl and
Diamond Streets; and that provisions wouli be required for ingress and egress for any
proposed neighborhood shopping facilities to the south of the proposed multiple family
developsent.
Mr. Rreidt stated that it would be necessary to determine the status of any plans the
petitioner might have for development of the northerly portion of subject property.
Mr. Schlegel stated that the petitioner tentatively proposed multiple family development
to the east, a medical facility to the rear, but that nothing had been currently
resolved as to submission of plot plans covering development of the northerly portion of
subject property.
The Commissioa indicated their desire of requiring plans for development of the entire
parcel, that plans s;iould also in8icate what waild be proposed for the dead end streets
of Aiamond and Pearl Streets; and that as a suggestioa, the petitioner might wish to
place the 30 foot easement on the easterly portion of subject property instead of the
westerly portion.
Mr Schlegel stated that it might take six or seven months to complete negotiations of
the rear portion of subject property; and that only the front portion of subject
property was currently being developed because of interested persons in said develop-
ment.
Further discussion was held by the Co~mnission zelative to the various means of develop-
ment of subject property; whether the Commission should recommend termination of
previous proceedings; that the petitioner should indicate proper ingress and egress to
the northerly portion of subject property; that it might be advisable for the lessee
to meet with the Planning Department to ascertain the best means of development of
subject property.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Na 387
to the meeting of April 15, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner time to consult with
the Planning Department to determine the best possible means of development of subject
property, and to allow the Planniag Department sufficient time to present a study
indicating the best possible land use for the area. Commissioaer Alired secondpd the
motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCIAS3IF~CATION Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recommend to the City
N0. P-59•d~0-59 Council that Resolu~ion of Intent for Reclassification
AND No. F-59-60-59 and Vaziance No. 1284 be termiaated, based on the
VARIANCB N0. 1284 fact that subject Reclassification couid no longer appiy to any
TSRMINATION future development of the property proposed for reclassification,
since development of the property had been material2y affected by
• heavy traffic on Wilshire Street, thus preventing proper ingress
and egress to said street. Commissioner Al1reG seconded the
' motion, MOTION CARRIHD.
RHCBSS - Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten (10)
minutes, Commissioner Sides seconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIBD.
The Commission recessed at 4:15 P.M.
,;~'
~
/
,. ~_ `~.. . __ . . .--
~ ~ ~
~
,
MINUTH3, CITY PLAIdVING COhA1TSSI0N, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1454
RECONVENB - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 4:25 P.M„ all members ef the
Commission being present.
COivuiTIO'riAL U58 - PUDL3C HBhRING. V. S. H03BS, 105~ Souih Magnolia, Pullerton, Cali-
PERMIT N0. 389 fornia, Owner; D. W. HOBBS, 153 Rose Drive, Pullerton, California,
Agent; requesting permission to HSTABLISH AN ICS VSNDING MACHINH on
property described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a
frontage of 104 feet on the east side of Los Angeles Street, and a froatage of 109 feet
on the south side of Water Street, ar~ further described as 600 South Los Angeles Street.
Property presently ciassified C-2, GHNERAL C064dffitCIAL, ZOI~.
Mr. Lee Hebbs, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he
had nothing '`urther to and for the Commission's consideration.
The Commission inquired of the representative of the petitioner whether he was the
operator of the liquor store, to which Mr. Hobbs replied~ that he only planned to place
the ice machine on subject property; and thatthepetitioner would run the liquor store.
The Commission discussed the possibility of requiring the petitioner to improve the
subject pro~aerty so that it would present a store rather than a service station; and
that it might be in order to request that the petitioner be required to appeare before
the Commission to assist in the Commission~s decision for the proposed use,:.as well as,
the present use on subject property.
Commissioner pebley offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit
No. 389, to the meeting of April.l, 1963, and to notify the petitioner to be present at
said,hearing in order to answer questions the Commission had. Commissioner Chavos
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC F~ARING. CALIFORNIA BVANGSLISTIC ASSOCIATION, INC., 121 West
PBRMIT.~NO:•390. Cypsess,Street, Anaheim, Califocnia, Owners; JOSBPH COLOMBO, 1104
Bast 17th,Street, Santa pna, California, Agent; requesting permission
. to DBMOLISH AN BXISTING SUNDAY SCHOOL SUILDING AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-
STORY SUNDAY SCHOOL BUILDING AND PBLLGNf3HIP HALL on property
described as; A rectangular parcel oii land having a frontage of 70 feet on the north
side of Cypress Street aad a depth 171 feet, the westerly boundary of said property
being approximately 265 feet east of the centerline of Lemon S:reet, and further
described as 121 West Cypress Street. Property presently classified P-1, AUTOMOBILS
PARKING, ZONS.
Mr, Joseph Colombo; agent for the petitioner, appeared beFore the Commission and
stated he had nothing further to add for the Commission•s consideration, but would be
glad to answer questions.
The Comwission reviewed the plot plans and inquired of Mr. Colombo what portion of the
structure was being demolished, whether any consideration had been given for parking
facilities, since there were no parking plans indicated on the proposed plot plans, and
that although many of the churches in Anaheim did not have sufficient parkiag facilities,
the Commission should.not disregard requiring parking facilities.
Mr. Colombo stated that the proposed new facilities would not increase the seatiag
capacity of the sanctuary upon which Code parking requirements wexe based,~but~w~re• ju5t
complementary facilities to the existing structure, and that through private verbal
agreement with the manager of the telephone company, permission had been given to '
utilize the telephone company~s parking .Zot for church parking on Sunday"and evenings.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject petition,
and received no reply. ~
TH8 HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
%
-----i- - -
. ~ _ . ~~ _--,.- . . _.... . ..._
~ ~ ~ ~
~_ -
~
~
,j~
~
r
CONDITIONAL USB - Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 679, Series 1962-63, and
PSRMIT N0. 390 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissianer Allred
(Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No, 390, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioqer Camp in offering the foregoing resoiution requested
thai~ a finding be made that Code parking requirements be waived, because the petitioner
stipulated that through verbal agreement with the manager of the telephone companp
permission was granted the church to use the parking facilit,ies of the telephone
company on Sundays and evenings,
On roll eall the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote;
AY83: COMMISSIONffitS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gau~r. Mungail, Pebleq, Perry,
Sides.
' ,~~
~; ,.
NOBS: : Coh9dISSIONBRS: Noae.
ABSBNT: CObUlISSIONHRS: None.
CONUITIONAL USB - PUBLIC }IDARING. ANIIV ROSNHR 9ILVBR, 232 South Alta VistR Boulevard,
PBRMIT I10. 391 Los Angeles 36, California, Owner; SHIRLBY GLASGaW, 10701 Parliament,
Garden Grove, California, pgeat; requesting permission to BSTABLI3H
A DANCB AND .ACROBAT INSIRUCTION• STITDIO on property cfzscribed as: .
An;irregular parcel of laad haviag a frontage of 107 feet on the
south side of Bali Road`n~nd an average depth of 585 feet, the westerly boundary of said
property being appr.oximately 572 feet eaet of the centerline of Bnott Avenue, and
further described as 3414-K West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-1, NHIGHBOlF-
HOOD Cq`AdBRCIAL, ZONB.
~krs~~,5hirley ~lasgow, a~ent for the petitioner. appeared before the Commission and
stated that she wisl~Ito clarify the legal notice stating that gymnastics wouid require
considerable equipment, whereas, she proposed aerobatics which required little or no
equipment.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was aayone in the Council Chamber opposinp,
subject petition, and received no reply.
TFffi FIDARING WA3 CLOSBD.
Commisai'oner Pebley noted that one of the recommended conditions of approval by the
Interdepartmental Committee was the removal or relocatioa of the standpipe and
compietion of the street paving~ and stated that he felt this was.~an.,unnecessary .•
expense for the approvol of the proposed use of a portioa of•subject property,
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 680, Series 1962-63, aad moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commiasioner Sides, to grant Petition for Conditional
Uae Permit No, 391~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Dn roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYBS: COI~DlI33I01dffit3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig~ Gauer, Muagall, Pebley, Perrq,
Sides.
NO83: COMMISSION~tS; None.
ABSBNT,: CC~lMISS20NIDRS: None.
RHCBS3 - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to adjourn the meeting for dinner, and to
recoavene at 7:00 P.M.~ Commissioner Allred seconded~the motion. '
MOTION CARRIBD.
The meeting recessed at 5:00 P.M.
_ -~ ~
, ~ , ; • ~': _ .__ -.__ ..._
, v~` ~ ' ~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COb41I33I0N, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1455
~. _ ..~...~. _.., w,,.~.~ , , _
I~
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING COAII~fISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1456
RHCONVBNH - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meetiag at 7:00 P.M., all Commissioners
being present.
CQNDITI(EVAL USE - PUBLIC F~ARING. EUCLID SHOPPING CBNTffit, 2293 West Ball Road,
pffitMIT N0. 388 Anaheim, California, Owners; H, RALPH LOVHTT, 4921 Durfee Avenue,
Pico Rivera, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONS2RUCT
~A DRIVS-IN THBATBR AND RHLATHD SIGN on property described as:
A zectangular parcel of land having a frontagg of 1,249 feet on the south side of
Satella Avenue, and a frontage of 600 feet on the east side of Buclid Street, except for
the 200 by ~00 foot portion of land located on the southeast corner of 8uclid Street
and Katella Aaenue from the above descziption, Property presently classified R-A,
RBSIDBNTIAL AGIiTCULT[TRAL, ZONB, and C-1, NSIGHBQRHOOD C(Y~MffitCIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Ralph Lovett~ agettt for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
that a drive-in theater could be permitted in the present zoning of subject property
through the filing of a conditional use permit; that no drive-in theater was located
within three (3) miles of subject propertq; that the theater would be the optimum
construction on subject p:coperty; that said property was sufficiently large enougii to
accommodate the proposed use; that the traffic emanating from the proposed use would
occur during the time the streets were not being used by persons going to and return3ng
from work or sehool; that the property owner to the south approved the proposed use;
that extensive landscaping and fencing as iliustrated on the colored poster submitted
was proposed; that the drive-in theater would be a self-contained unit; that the
lights and screen were so situated as to direct them away from the resideatial
property; and that if subject petition were approved, any conditions stipulated by the
Commission would naturally be conformed witha '.
Mr. Cecil Vinnicos, present owner and mperator of the Brbokhurst Shopping Center
Theater, appeared before the Commission and stated that he,would be the operator of
the proposed drive-in theater; that he had been in *.ae motion picture business for
31 yeart; that the proposed theater would be ideally suited to families with childrgn,
since t;Yey would be uaable to attend a regular theater; that the pr6posed lor.ation of
the theater was partially surrounded by a commercial shopping center and residentiai
property; that a drive-in theater had nothing objectioaable to it; that it would be ~
quiet within 15 feet from any given area, because speakers would be inside of .
automobiles; that the amount of light being reflected from the screen would be minor.
Mr. Vinnicos further read from an excerpt of the Anaheim Bulletin,letters received
£rom various organizations which would use the Srooi~nurst Theater•.for charitable
purposes, and stated that the groposed drive-in could be utilized during the daytime
for sioilar purposes; that the proposed theater would be an effort to serve the
Community in the best possible manner, and that the proposed drive-in would employ
approximately 40 persons.
6lr. Floyd Ferano, 1881 Hileen Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition, and stated that he represented the Buciid-Aatella Homeowners Group
of Orange County; that upon learning of the proposed drive-in theater, certain
individuais of the area contacted property owners to ascertain their feelings or
opposition; that the residents of the area almost unanimously felt tlie use would be
detsimental to the health and welfase of the area; and that the various representatives
contacted the Euclid-Bateila Homeowners Group to represent them and preseat their
opposition in an orderly manner before the Commission; and that three representative
homeowners of the area would present the opposition; viewpoin't of all persons in the
Council Chamber as their spokesmen.
Mr. Waiter Slocum, 11012 Wakefieid, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission in
opposition to subject petition, and stated that after serious deiiberation~weighing
both pros and cons of the proposed drive-in theater and the residences surrounding the
drive-in theater~felt that said use would be detrimental to the surrounding businesses;
that all the offices, supermarket, and drug stare tvere all closed, particularly the
offices,being ciosed before the theater opened; that others closed no later than
10:00 0'Clock P.M., therefore reducing the no~ses and hazards to the residential area;
that there would ba ao appreciable business in~rease to the area; that business wouid
show a steady and increasing decline by the proposed use; that the proposed drive-in
would not eahance the area sin~ce it would iAtroduce other types of businesses which would
..c
~
'
---- _____~/
~-~- . __ _ . .
~. ,~
~
`~~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1457
OONDITIONAL USE - be detrimental to the business and interest of the Community; that
PERMIT N0. 388 the subject property was considered valuable; that other prospective `:
(Continued) businesses were considering establishing stores and offices in the
vicinity of subject property, and to permit a drive-in theater would dis- ~
courage any future commexcial expansion due to its incompatibility
to normal buisnesses in the area; that there was no need for a
drive-in theater in the immediate area with a present theater being located near by; !
that there were several drive-in theaters within an estimated 15 minute drive from ,
sub~ect property.
Mr. Robert Mayer, 1891 Flippen Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and stated that he would try to present the many objections to the
proposed drive-in theater as a property owner; (1) a drive-in theater would be
increasing debris and trash on the streets and neighboring properties; that frequently
drive-in theaters were used on Sunday for swap shopping, the noises and an~~oyanres
from this type of use would be an encroachment into the privacy of the single family
residences; (2) that the number of parking spaces being proposed for the drive-in were
1,000, the noises from these cars entering and leaving the premises, together with
starting and stopping of motors, squeaking of brakes and blowing of horns after midnight,
would be detrimental to the health of the people; that it would increase the traffic
on Euclid Street and Katella Avenue considerably more than said streets could handle,
regardless of the time, day or night; that a survey of the number of cars using Katella
Avenue was approximately 23,000 on ohe day, and almost 20,000 on
Euclid Street; that upwards of 40 accidents had occured at the corner of Euclid and Katella
since'late last year; that Euclid and Katella would be considered the longest streets
in the county, and as such would have an increase in traffic day and night, that it
was presently difficult to reach some of the single family developments south of subject
property because the only ingress to the small streets was from Euclid Street or Katella
Avenue; that during the summer, the trafflic emanating from the Disneyland area was
greatly increased, and traffic hazards wo`uld be considerablyincreased if an additional
1,000 cars were pro~ected for the streets every evening; and that although all the
people opposing sub~ect petition were awaxe of the value of the property, any develop-
ment of said property should be for other commercial purposes than that proposed, and
the rights of the property owners should be protected.
Mr. Claude Wiseman, 1833 Bayless Street, ~appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated that the oposed drive-in would be detrimental to the
property located in close proximity to s ject property; that the construction of a
drive-in would not be of benefit to the 'omeowners or improve business, that the
proposed use of sub3ect property was in onflict with the proposed General Plan; that
the Commission should encourage development of low-density for subject property and
abutting property to the south; that the proposed use of the land should be considered
for a group of commercial esteblishments ~hich would give considerably more resources to
the City; that the property to the south!of sub3ect property would not be given a fair
and equitable return if the proposed dri~e-in were permitted; that the approval of the
drive-in theater would stop any further commercial development in the area.
Mr. Ferano, in summation, stated that the thoughts presented by the three gentlemen
gave some idea of the concern which brought the number of persons into the Council
Cliamber; that five or six meetings had been held in yarious homes abutting subject
property, attended by property owners immediately effected by the proposed drive'in,
and from these meetings and the presentation made to the Commission, it was the best
means of presenting an orderly form of opposition which indicated that the residents
agreed that everyone had the right to deVelop their property to its best potential, but
the proposed use, if considered for approval by the Commission, would not be considering
the rights of all property owners in close proximity to subject property, since 1,200
or more cars using the proposed drive-in theater would create noise, fumes, trash and
general nuisances which would be detrimental to the health and welfare of the residents
in the Community; and that development should be made in a manner compatible to the area.
, ----'-~ , ~ ~ _ .. . .. . .._
~t ~j •
~'
1
~'
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING COhalISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1458
COI~IDITIONAL U3B ~ Mr. Vinnicos, in rebutal, stated that it was not the iateation of
PBRMIT N0, 388 the owners of subject property to antagonize the residenta~of the~
(Contiaued) surrounding area; that said ,theater was not the first one being
applied for; that past history related ~:o .e.drive-in:,the,ater.~n
Los Angeles at Third Street, near Pairf.ax, which had been accepted
by the residents in the Community as being compatible; that a drive-in theater had been
an acceptable thing to the neighboring property owners; that a similar development was
constructed near the University of Southern California after a neighborhood commercial
shopping center had proven to be economically impractical for the area; that homeowners
near these drive-ins~~had offered no opposition; that the drive-in could be used.during
the day by the employees of the shopping center for parking spaces ia order to permit
more parking spaces for shoppers; that they proposed to have persons in charge of the
clean-up of the drive-in so that trash and debris would not blow into other property
adjacent to the said drive-in; that the landacaping and trees would offer an improvemeat
rather than a detriment to the area; that the proposed drive-in would be toward the
rear of subject property and the frontage of subject propertq wouid be developed for
commercial uses; that the Commission couid place sestrictions which would be complied
with regarding traffic and proper usage; that the proposed drive-in theater would not
present more traffic than any pr.oposed shopping facility; that property values would
increase rather than decrease; that by and,large the proposed drive-in would be
operated on a high plane and give enjoyment to many people; and that the proposed
drive-in was a f3cility which should be allowed in the Citq of Anaheim.
Doctor Robert G. Robb, appeared before the Commission and stated that recently he had
requested reclassification of property in close proximity to the propased drive-in and
that he had been required to improve and b~autify his property; that due to his. ,.
considerable investment hei was concerned for the five acre parcel directly to the west
of subject property which he proposed for muitiple office building us~~; that pe=sons
interested in this proposed development~ and his proposed development~ expressed t~heir
disapproval of a drive-in in close proximity to office buiidings; that he had visited
areas in Long Beach, Bellflower and 3anta Ana where drive-inswere locatecb and very little
development of lands adjacent to it had been noted since the drive-ins had been
constructed.
Mr. Carl J, Miller~ Manager of the Food Giant Store~ appeared before the Commissioa
and stated that he was opposed to the drive-in; that the parking facilities for the
sfiopping center were preseatly used by youag drivers as a racetrack cuttiag across the
entize parking area from gatella to Buclid Street, and that said drive-in would be
detrimental rather thaa an aid to aay of the shopping facilities ia the area.
Mrs. Hugene 11~omas, 2080 3outh Loara Street, mother of several ch3ldrenratated to the
Commission that after discussing a proposed drive-in with her teenage daughter, her
daughter expressed horror at the thought of having a drive-ia theater, since she felt
that an undesirable element of teenagers would be congregating in the area se~d preaenting
an unhealthyatmosphere for other youngsters to use any of the shopping facilities or..streets
and sidewalks after said drive-in were constructed; azd that~e~noise and traffic would
be a detriment to the entire area: •.
Severai other persons in the Council Chamber voiced their oppoaitioa to the proposed
drive-in, each sta'ing that it was an undesirable development for subject property
which would be a..detriment to the health, welfare and property values of the Community. -
THB HBARING WAS CL06ED.
Commissioner Ctiavos noted that a coaditioaal use permit was not intended as a vehicle
to by-pass the Zonin~ Code; that drive-ia theaters were considered compatibie ia a
light industrial zone through the filing of a conditioaal uae permit; that theaters
were permitted in a C-2, Ce,nerai Commercial, Zone= aad that subject property was
basically Neighborhood Commercial and Reaideatial Agriculturai, Zone~~ that trailer park
requests.in zones other than, in which they were permitted wer~ generaily denied; that
any use in the Disneyland area not compatible to it was geaeraliq denied; and that it
would be the duty of the Commiasion to afford so~pe protection to the property ownera
in close proximity to subject property, in the consideration of a drive-in theater as an
incompatible use.
~
. '
t
~
i
;
/
---• ----- ----- ~~----
~-
, i _. _.._ .
~
. . .__
. . _. ...~_ .
~' ~
~ _
1
1
i
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued:
1459
CONDITIONAL USB - The Commission further reviewed the pians discussing the architecture
PERMIT N0. 388 for the proposed drive-in and its compatibility to the adjacent
(Continued) property; the possible increase of traffic and accident problems
generating from the proposed development, and also discussed
that the proposed use would be more compatible in a heavy commercial
or a light indnstrial zone.
A petition signed by 704 persons was read to the Commission, as well as a letter
opposing subject petition.
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 681, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to denq Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 388., based on findings. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Chavos in offering the foregoing resolution stated that the proposed use
would adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development in the
area in which it was proposed to be located, and that the traffic generated by the
proposec? use would impose and undue burden upon 4he streets and highways designed and
improved to carry the traffic in the area,
Commissioner Perry in offering additional findings stated that the proposed drive-in
should be located in light industriai zones after considerable study by the Planning
Commission in work sessions in formulating the new light industrial zone, and that
no hardship was shown to warrant approval'of a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Sides stated that he concurred with the findings and further stated that
the proposed use was incompatible with the area.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follocving vote:
AYHS: CObAlIS310NBR8: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Sides.
NQH3: COMMISSIONHRS: None.
ABSHNT: C0~4118SIONERS: None.
RHCBSS - Chairman Mungall declared a five (5) minute recess to clear the Council
Chamber of p'ersons interested in the rrevious petition~
The Commission recessed at 8:05 P.M., and reconvened at 8:10 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING. BROCRWAY D, and HBLHN W. ROHBRTS, 106 North
PffitMIT N0. 393 Claudina Streez, Anaheim, California, Owners; KBNNBTH W. HOLT,
1557 West Maple Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting
permission to BSTABLI3H AND OPBRATB A PRIVATB BLIDdHNTARY SCHOOL
on property described as: A rectangular ps~rcel of land having a frontage of 144 feet
on the west side of Walnut Street, and a depth_of 150 feet, the northerly boundary of
said Qropertq being approximately 581 feet~south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street,
and further described as 555 South Walnut Street. Property presently classified M-l,
LIQiT INDUST'itIAL, ZONH.
Mr. Renneth Hoit, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion and stated
that the present operators of the Pairmont Private School in Anaheim would be operating
the proposed school; that the school was presently undergoing considerable expansion of
a number of pup.ils which had fiiled the school to capacity in its preseat location;
and that the proposed use of the property would t~ to accommodate additional students;
that although subject property was zoned for light industrial use, it was south of the
Betsv Ross public 9chool, and that south of the sehool it wee deVeloped for:single family
low-density sesidential use; that by utiiizing the present structure and improving its
appearance, this would enhance the surrounding area; that the children wouid be brought
to schooi or would walk to school; that no bus transportation would be offered to the
private school students; that it was presently anticipated to have four employees for
,~
i
- - , , -- - --- ;,
"~, - - . _. . .
~ ~' ~
5~ I
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING CONAlISSI~1, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1460
CONDITIONAL U3H - the school; that school classes would be between the hours of
PHRMIT N0. 393 9:00 A.M, aud 2:00 P.M, for.. student usey and~ 8:00 A.M. 40 4:00 P.M,
(Continued) fos empioyee use; and that the only changes to be proposed for
' subject property would be internally, but that the external
appearance would remain the same as a home; and that the rear of the
property would be used for play purposes.
. ..\ y
~
. ~
Chairman Mungall inquired whether anyone in the Council Chamber opposed subject
petition, and received no reply.
TFIB HBARING WA3 CLOSBD.
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 682, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Craig, to grant.Petition for ConditionaS
Use Permit No. 393, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Perry in offering the foregoing resolution stated that the use was compatible
to the area, since ~there is an existing public school abutting subject property to the
northwest.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote:
AYB9: COMMIS3IONBRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungali, Pebley, Perry,
Sides.
NOB3: COM~lISSIONHRS: None.
A&4~VT: COhNlISSIOAIDRS: None.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC FIDARING. MR. and 1~IltS, R. !Y. CONN, 119 South Melrose Street,
PIDIMIT N0. 394 Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to EXPAND AN ~
HXI3TING CONVALBSCENT HOSPITAL on property described as; A rectan- ~
uglar parcel of land having a frontage of 63 feet on the west side
of Melrose Street and a depth of 142 feet, the northerly boundary of said property
being 250 feet, plus or minus, south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further ~
described as 119 3outh Melrose Street. Property presently classified P-l, AUTOMOBILS
PARBING, ZONB. ~
Mr. H. W. Burrows, architect representing the petitioner, appeared before Lhe Commis§ion ~
and stated that the petitioner proposed to iacrea3e the patient capacity by extending ~
the existing tiuilding to the rear; that some remodeling would be doae on the interior;
that the remaining homes between Broadway and Lincoln Avenue had been purchased with
the intent of developing said property for multiple family use; that little parking ;
would be required on the property since most patients were elderly and did not have ~
automobiles; that the few visitors that would be there wauld maialy be doctors; that the 7
building setback from the street was 25 feet, and if necessarq, parking couid be t
provided in this front yard setback. • • ~
i
Mr. Hugene Burkhauser, 2327 Hast South 3treet, appeared before the Co~nission in
opposition to subject petition and stated that he owned the property'to. the north and
to the south of sub,ject property; that no provision had been made for parking; that the '
streets were already crowded with parking; that when he trie;d to park his car upon
inspection or to do repair work on his property, he was ur.able to park; that the i
proposed addition would be crowding to the rear of the pr<~perty,, aad would oaly be ;
five (5) feet from the property line; that the tenants to the aorth had complained of I
the noise during the night from patients at the convalescent hospital; that he was
required to proviCe sufficient parking facilities for his tenants, aad this should be i
a;requirement of the proposed expaasion of subject property. ~
'
. --. - ~ -. .~:,._~.~::, ~
" ~--` ~~ . . . . ___..
`~ ;~ ~ +.1 ~~~
j
MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING COh9NISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1461
CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted that on the field inspection trip, rio ~~~
PffitMIT N0. 394 parking problem was presented whea they arrived,with two cars to
(Continued) park, and viewed subject property,
The Comaission fvrther inquired of the architect for the petitioner9
whether there were regular visiting hours, to which Mr. Burrows
replied that about the only visitors the patients had were the doctors who visited them;
that many of the patients had beea sent from the Countq Hospital for convalescing, and
to his knowledge there had been no parking problem;.that the petitioner proposed to
construct additional rooms where the preseat kitchen unit was and transfer the kitchen
unit to the location of the present garage; and that approximately three persons would
be employed to take care of the patients.
TH8 HHARING WAS CLQSBD.
The Commission discussed the possibility of giving serious consideration to the proposed
location of the kitchen; that it would be located immediately below the windows of the
apartment buildiag abutting to the west of subject property and odors emanating from the
kitchen would be objectionable to residents cf these apartments, and asked the
architect to review the plans with the Commissioa to locate the best possible place for
kitehen facilities.
The Commission reviewed the plans with the architect discussing the possibility of
moving said kitchen unit to the northwest coraer, or to centralize the kitchen unit in
order that it would not be objectionable to residents abutting the westerly portion of
subject property.
A letter from the Orange County Objectives Commi:tee relative to hospital and conva-
lescent home regulations was read to the Commisaion.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 683, Series 1962~63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional
Use Permit No. 394, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
Commissioners Alired and Chavos, in offering and seconding the foregoing resolution,
stated that development plans were to be submitted for D'evelopment Revtew approvai
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and that the proposed expansion of~an
existing convalescent hospital was compatible to the area.
On r.oii call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: CONIl~(ISSIONBR3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
3ides.
NOHS: COhAtISSIONffitS: None.
pBSHNT; COMMISSIONHRS: None,
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FIBARING. CAIARR C~tPORATION, 10502 West Katella Avenue~
pffitMIT N0. 395 AnahQim, California, Owaer; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT A
SINGLH gAMIFY pIANNBD DHVSLOPMBNT CONSISTING OP FIVB (5) SINGLB
PAMILY DWBLLINGS on property described as: An irregularly
L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 90 feet on the west side of Western Aveaue,
approximately 130 feet north of Stoney~irook Drive, said property beiag 310 feet, plus
or minus in depth, and also having a frontage of 49 feet on the north side of
Stoneybrook Drive, approximately 285 feet west of Westera Avenue. Property presently
classified R-A, RESIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
..,,,
1
Mr. Harry Rnisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and i
stated that there seemed to be a little difficulty between what was proposed on the
plot plan and the findings and recommendations ~f the Planaing,Department Staff Report, as it
suggested that subject Petitionbe ieferred back to the Planning Department to• ,
resolve any problems.
~) ~ ~
, w !
~ ~
~
>, `, .
1
.
< ....
.
~ '
------
-----------__ _.
._. .._..._ ~ ~~~ .
. ~~ ...._ _..,...,,... .
' `
/
I ` , ~ ~ \
MINUTX,S, CITY PLAHIdING COf~4riI33I0N, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1462
CONDITIONA*., USH - Zoning Coordinator Martin greidt, inquired whether the proposed
PBRMIT N0. 39S development would be under oae ownership becanse if it were to be
(Continued) multiple ownership there would be iasufficient property for
subdivision purposes. ,
Mr. Bnisely stated that the architect had discussed these problems with the Planning
Department and indicated changes wh3ch might be made to solve difficulties regarding
said subdivision.
In response to Commissioner Chavos's question as to the ciassification of zone of
subject property, Mr. Kreidt stated ihat subject property was still Residential Agri-
cultural, Zone; that under a conditional use permit, single family dwellings of
6,000 square feet were permitted; that although the residential agricuitural section of
the Municipal Codef Title 18 Zoning, which requires 6,000 square feet per single family
dwellingy it also stipulated that lots must ue at least an acre in size; and thzt if
subdivision of any residential agricuJ.tural acreage was to be proposed on subject
propertyy the lot size of a proposed c!evelopment would be in conflict with the State
3ubdivision Act.
Mr. Robert Wainwright, 646 South Curson~ appeared in opposition to subject petition and
stated , that he only conditionally opposed subject petition; that subject property had
a higher grade level than his, and during a heavy rain or a lengthy rainy season~ water would
wash into his area and•he wotrld be, ~nable to plant grasa or landscape his area because
of flooding; 3nd that a six (6) ~oot masonry wall from the finished grade level of
subject property should be one of the conditions; that he opposed the five (5) foot
setback from his property line, since this would be an encroachment on the privacy of
his home, but that he would withdraw form of oppositioa if the Commission required a
six (6) foot masonry wall aad proper drainage away from his property.
Mr. Norman Jok!nson, 3302 Glen Holly Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated
that he was not opposed to the plan as such, but that he was representing the church
members of the adjoining property; that the church's policy was not to oppose any
type oi~ ~2velopmeat adjacent to the church, but would only oppose undesirable elements
or moral factors invoived,that as a member of the church and a representative of a
nusber of parishioners of the church, they oppose the 6,000 square foot singie family
dwelling units being proposed on subject prope-ty; that the church was planniag to
dis~ose of 5 acres of the property to~the:~rear of•subject property and north of
Curson Drive; that development plans for this 5 acre parcel were being formulated with
homes of approximately 8~000 square feet on a 70 foot by 150 foot lot; and to approve
a substandard type construction adjacent to future homes might discourage the
prospective builder of thesc single family homea; that at the time the church had
purchased their property to the north of subject property it had been their intention
to develop the rear S acres for church purposes: but that a change had taken place in
the past 6~ years which necessitated changing the plaas of a large church facility due
to the high density of the apartments in the area; that the churcii parsonage was vslued
at $28.000, and the prop~sen development of the rear.5 acres of the church praperty
pxoposed to be developed into single family homes would have structures were not comparable ~co
the value of thechurch parsonage; and that it wa.s hoped if sub;'~s~~~~pet3tion,were
approved, the Commission would coasider requi~:ing a six (6) foot masonry t~rdll separatir.~
the subject property from the church property.
Mr. Frank Birch, 3234 Stoneybrook Drive,~appeared before the Co~amissior_ in opposition
to subject petition and stat~ed thatthe prapased substandard development for subject
property~would be similar to the multiple family resideatiai development proposed some-
time ago on sub,ject property, which had been denied; that to develop subject property
with the substandard square footage hoe~es would predetermine the disposition of the
property to the southeast, known as the Thompson property; that if the petitioner had
contacted the owners of tt~e Thompson property it could be developed into a•~more
desirable single family residential area, more compatible to all the single family
residential homes in the area.
•
- - ~
~
c--
. -
~ ,. -- - - ~.....~-
}~;-.. .. . _.. _~..,
~,~
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING CODAtIS3I0N, March 18, 1963, Contiaued:
1463
CONDITIONAL USH - Mr. Knisely stated that the Thompson property was tied up in court
PffitMIT N0. 395 for settling of aa estate, aad therefore, would hold up any
tCoatinued) development proposed by the petitioner if combined development were
followedo
The Commission noted that the density proposed for subject property
was not in keeping with the general thinking of the Commission in reference to the
proposed Generai Plan.
Mr. Robert Cecil, 3210 Stonybrook Drive~ appeared before the Commission in opposi#ion
to subject petition and stated that the petitioner proposed to side step multiple
family development bq proposing substandard single famil~ homes for subject property;
that subject property if cocnbined with the adjacent prop~rty could be developed into
a high quality single family deveiopment'and if the propdsed development were approved~
this would open the door for multiple falnily development in the area.
Mr. John Simpson, 3309 West Deerwood Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated that subject petition was similar to the Stanton Nursery
property recently deaied by the Commission; and that subject property should be
developed for single family development in order to be compatible to the other singie
family deveiopment in close proximity to subject property.
Mr. John Roscoe, 33~1 Stonybrook Drive; appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated that the proposed development of single family residences
would be considerably below the assessed valuations of the property surrounding sub,ject
property.
Mr. Knisely stated that usually the Commission recommended multiple famiiy development
abutting commercial development and ia his estimation a church use was a commercial
type use, and then again stated that it was his desire to have the architect for the
deveiopment meet with the Pl~nning Department to determiae the problema existing and to
resolve the problems before being heard again by the Commission.
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No, 395 bas-
ing his reason thet~the petitioner was appiying for substandard development of single family
homes, which would be enjoying the privileg~ of single family iesidential homes, but would
not aseume the responsibilities which this would require, that the Commission two weeks
ago had denied a similar request noting that said developmeat was a substandard single
family development. Commisaioner Gauer secoad^i the motion.
The Commission continued discussion of the possibility of developmeat af snbject pr~perty,
and noted that it would be to the City~s advantage to have subject property developed as
was projected on the proposed General Pian, that the Commission might consider continuing
subject petition in order to allow the petitioner and his architect to confer with the
Planning Department to revise the p:lans and incorporate the Commission*s thinking and
desires for compatibility of development with adjoining property. that said develoQment
should be for other than multiple family development, that the Commission had requested
other petitioners to contact adjoining property owners to combine their properties to
develop said properties into a more compatible development of odd shaped parcels of land,
that the Commission did not desire to release their prerogative for the approval or denial
of any petition presented to them, that concrete suggestions should be sabmitted to the
P~lanning Department to resolve any probiems regarding subjecE petitioit, and that there '
might be a possibility that these problems ~rould 'not be resolved because the adjoining
property was being held in the litigation of an estate..
\
1
A vroman who was present in the Council Chamber, advised the Commission that she was one
of the heirs of the Thompson estate, that the trustee of the Thompson estate was not
involved in the settlement of the lhompsoa property under discussion~ that said property
had been sold through the Bank of America to an individual, thus eliminating any estate
problems.
The Commission then discussed the possibility for development of subject property with
the suggestion that the petitioner might contact the new owner'for possible development
of both proparties incorporating plans for a better type of development, that the Com-
mission should consider giviag the adjoining properties similar eonsideration, that the
Codunission should be concerned if subject property were approved as proposed, and that this may
set a precedent for deveiopment of the adjoining property to the south,
i
~'
-~-----,- '- . ~~ ,~/ .
. ~ , , .~.. . _ . . . , . . . .._.._~...__
~ ~
. . p . ~ .. . . ° ~ .
1
` .
~
1
~ ~: ~,. ,
r.... .
, < > ~' ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING CQbAlISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued; 1464
CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Knisely then stated that the petitioner would try to coatact the
PBe~MIT N0. 395 new owner of the property adjoining subject property, and then meet
(Continued) with the Planning Department to resolve any differences in the proposed
development.
Coiamissioner Chavos then withdrew his motion of denial, and Commissioner Gauer withdrew
his second of said motion~offered for subject petition.
Commissioner .Allred offered a motion to re-open the hearing and continue the hearing of
Petii~ion for Conditional Use Permit No. 395, to the meeting of. April 1, 1963, in order
to allow the petitioner time to contact the adjoining property owner and meet with the
Planning Department to resolve differences in the development oF subject property.
Commissio:~er Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. Commissioner Chavos voted "No",
Commissioner Camp left the Council Chamber at 9:35 P,M.
RBCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBA1tING. UNITBD SAVINGS and LOAN ASSOCIATION, 425 3outh
N0.62-63-81 and La Brea, Inglewood, California, Owners; RICHARD and GUHTZONT,
P. 0. Box 2128~ Oxnard, California; Agents; Property described
TffiVTATIVB MAP OF as: ~n irregular parcel of land haviag a frontage of approximately
1RACT N0. 4643 505 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and having an
approximate frontage of 1,750 feet on the west side of Jefferson
Street. Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDENTIAL A(3tICUL-
TIIRAL, ZONH.
RBQUHSTBD QASSIFICATION: R~3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RSSIDBNTIRL, ZONH.
Subject tract is located at the northwest cornes of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Jefferson
St*eet covering approximately 20 acres~is proposed for subdivision into 63 R-3, Multipie
P~mily Residential, Zone, lots. .
yr. William Nitz, Consuiting Bngineer, representing,the developer, appeared before the
~ommission and stated he would answer any questions the Commission might have.
The Commission noted that subject property was surrounded on two sides by single
family subdivision development; that the Commission~s feelings regarding multiple
family development was to act as buffer between c.ommercial development and singie famiiy
deveiopment; that the proposed development projected two-story within 150 feet of
single family residential development; that to permit strip development of multiple
faai3ly units h~,unded on both sides by single family subdivision; would be in confli.ct
with the Commissioa's thinking relative to the proposed General Plan for subject
property, and that subject development might be considered an encroachment into a
single family residential area.
i~r. Gue4zow, deveioper of the property, appeared before the Commission and stated that
when subject tract had been'originally proposed for development and property tentatively
purchased, had been proposed for siagle family subdivision; that upon completion of
plans for sabdivision of development and construction, the City of Orange had approved a
subdivision tract immediately adjacent to subject property with homes beiag constructr-d
approximately $7,000 less than was being proposed on their origir:al tract; that the .
sin~le family homes to the opposite side of subject propersy were being devaloped and
were approximately $5,000 less than was bein~ proposed for subject property; that a
feaeibility study had been made on the possibility of selling homes inthe subdivision
on subject property with the same plot plans as originally intended, aad it was decided
that it would be considerably more difficult to try to seli these, a more expensive
type home, since these homes were abuttiag homes of considerably less value, thereupon
they redesignF~i the projections for the tentative tract projecting multiple family use
of three to fo~r units to a iot; that ali iots were in access of the minimum R-3.
Multiple Pamily requirements; that the developer was tryiAg to utilize the property to
enhance the area which would add materially to the City of Anaheim; that a moderate .
rate of rent was being proposed for said apartments; that approximately one-third of
an acre was being der•oted to recreational area; that the developer was not proposiag the
usual "chzese box" R-3 development; that 216 units were being proposed with 269 covered
garages, all gareg~s baing serviced by alleys; that the pe:imeter of~the tract would
have single story construction and the center of the tract would be two-story construc-
tion; that there would be no drives having access from and to Jefferson Street to the
..._~_______._______ .__~.,_ -~__^_~_ ~
~-- .
,- _ .~ _ .
<~
MINUTB3, CITY PIANNING COhA4ISSI0N, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1465
RHCIASSIPICATION - subdivision; that adeguate off-street parking was provided; that
N0. 62-63-81 and he did not kttow what the future would bring regarding the
Bently property now pending for annexation to Anaheim; that the
TBNTATIVH MAP OP proposed deveiopment was a very well planned development which
TRACT N0. 4643 Anaheim could point to with pride, which the Commiss?on should
(Continued) consider; that the developer of the single family snbdivision had
not voiced any opposition to the proposed multiple family develop-
ment; that although the pattern had been set for single family
subdivision in close proximity to subject property, it was economically unfeasible for
the developer to utilize subject property through the construction of low cost tract
homes; that the origiaal intention of the developer, was to develop the area similar to the
Peralta.Hills area; that the price of a sir.gle family subdivision lot wouid be
considerably more than the lots which had developed in the City of Oraage; that the
homesthey originally proposed for single familg subdivision would be between $25,000
and $30,000; that the land cost was proposed in ratio to the type of houses being
constructed; that their plans for development of single family homes was shelved
because of lower c~uality homes being constructed adjacent to subject property; that in
order to u4iiize the subject property, the proposed development was planned; that if he were
to purchase subject property no:v, he would purchase it subject to multiple family
residential zoning and that he wished to offer the best possible development to the
resi3ents to the City of Anaheim.
The Commission discussed reasons for the requested change from low density to multiple
family residential use; that although the proposed General Pian was oniy a guide to
the development of the City of Anaheim,; low density residential development was the
proper projection for subject property; and that the request for multiple family
development bisecting single fz•:ily subdivision deveiopment would be contrary to good
pia:ining.
Commissioner Gauer left the Counci.l Chamber at 10:00 P.M.
A letter of opposition was read to the Commissioa received from the City of Orange
opp~osing subject Reclassification and Tentative Tract.
Mr. Guetzow stated that property ownPxs ia '~he Cit~q of Oraage adjoining subject
prope.rty had not voiced any oppusition to the proposed development and the absence of
any opposition was tacit approval of the petitioa.
Mr. Gauer returned to the Council Chamber at 10:05 P.M.
Commissioner Chavos stated that he felt that the developer of subject property had
failed to offer any protection to the homeowaers adjacent to aubject property, and
the Commission should take this into consideratio-y that homeowners abutting subject
~:opertp shouid now be protected by careful consideration of the Commission.
Mr. Ritte=~ 6505 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commissioa and
stated that he was the original developer of subject tract; that at the time the
tract was being proposed for subdivision he had viewed the Peralta Hilis ar~a.~and decided
to subdividesubject property into a similar tqpe of subdivision; that the trailer
park to the east had been taken into coasideration, said trailer park being in the
County and the variance under which it had been granted would have =un out, therefose
they~hacH considere~ the development original].y proposed as being ideal fd'r tSfe " "' •
property; that before they had completed ali ~~erreiopment plaas for buiiding and
subdividing,the City of Oraage had approved a subdivision which proposed homes
considerably less than was being proposed~at that time~for the tract in which subject
property is located~ and that it was after this that the developer decided to design
multiple family units of 3 to 4 units per lot which would be a considerable asset to
the area and would up-grade the area; and that ~e hoped the Commission would
favorably consider the proposed developmeat of subject property.
Chairman Mungall asked if anyone in the Co~ncil Chamber opposed subject petition, and
received no repiy. ~ '
TFID HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
. ~1
~
i
/,~
- _ _._..._~_ _-
--- ----
.
_, ~ . ;,. ~~:
. . . . . . .__ .
. . ... - • i ~ . .._ _ .._~.~
~ ~
/~
~ (' ~
~_,
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CO~AlISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued; 1466
RECIA33IPICATION - The Commission noted that approximately 50~ of the property to the
N0. 62-63-81 and northeast of subject pruperty was being utilized for freeway
purposes; that it might be possible to have some multiple family
TSNTATIVH MAP OF residential development abutting said freeway property; and 4hat
1RACT N0, 4643 it might be to the Commission's advantage to again make a field
(Continued) insp~ction trip of subject property and abutting properties to
varify statements made by the developers regarding the tract
homes.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to re~open the hearing and continue the hearing of
Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-81 to the meeting of April 1, 1963~ in order
to allow the Commission an opportunity to field check the property to determine the
compatibility of the proposed development with the existing single family development.
Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION GARRIBD.
Mr. Guetzow, the developer, requested that the Commission consider Tentative Map of
Tract No. 4643 in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-81.
Commissioaer Allred offered a motion to continue Tentative Map of Tract No. 4643 to
the meeting of April 1, 1963, in order that it might be heard in coajunction with
Reclassification No. 62-63-81. Commission¢r Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
RHCIA98IFICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. MBLVIN P. HSNTJEN, 619 Buttoawood Aveaue,
N0. 62-63-85 and Anaheim, California, and ARTHUR ~i. BBNTJEN, 439 Barkley, Orange,
• California, Owners; LBROY ROSE, A.I.A., 600 North Suclid Street,
CONDITIONAL USE Suite 686,,Anaheim, California, Agent; Property described as:
PIDtMIT N0. 384 An irregular parcel of land having a frontage of 359 feet on the
north side of Westmont Drive and a depth of 551 feet, the westerly
boundary of subject property being approximately 360 feet east of
the centerline of Loara Street. Yroperty presently classified R-0, 01~ PAMILY 3UBURHAN
20NS.
RHQUBSTBD CLA3~IPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB.
R8QU83TBU CONDITIONAL U3E: CONSTRUCT A 7W0-STORY PLANNBD MULTIPLB PAMILY RB$IDBNTLSL
DHVHLOPMBNT WI1H CARPORTS - WAIVB HBIGHT LIMITATION AND
PARgING RBQUIRBMBNTS.
Mr. LeRoy Rose, agent for the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission and stated
tt,at he realized that subject property was in the R-0 zone;that to the north of ,
subject property is a school,and a parking lot for the Broadway Shopping Center was
located to the west of subject property; that the petitioner proposed low-density
garden type development and single story studio of a high quality; that the proposed
development would offer an opportunity to the upper midle class of people to have a
high type residential development.
Commissioner Chavos stated that subject property should be developed as single family
residential or siagle family suburban and inquired why the petitioner was requesting
the proposed multiple family residential zone.
Mr. Rose repiied that the petitioners did not desire to develop for Residential
Suburban,Zone or Single family Resideatial,Zoae, but preferred to develop as Multiple
Family Resibential, Zone.
Mr. J. Neils Boege, 1434 Westmont Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated that prope~ty owners in the R-0 area,'west of Loara
Street,~appeared opposing the Broadway Shopping i,enter when its~•property was proposed
for reclassification; that a masonry wall and landecaping was requ:red of this
development which had not been constructed as required; tha•: •a::~a the churca requested
permissioa to construct in the R-0 zone, many of the persons ia the R-0 zone opposed
subject petition; that although the church was good for the Community, it lowered
the zoning vaiuation that encoaraged encroachment.of apartments; that the R-0 area
consisted of homes ranginf; from $35,000 to $70,000 in value; that the apartments would
increase the traffic and :Lbwer the lan~l value of the area.
.~,\
I
.
~ ~ ~ ,.
, , , • `~
, . . _ . _. . ._ ._._._...._..
~ , _~...
~ e
~:
MINUTB3,. CITY PLANNING CObAfISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1467
RHCIASSIFICATION - Mr. B. L. Overhope, 651 Dyer Drive, appeared before the Commission
N0. 62-63-85 and in opposition to subject petition, and stated that Dyer Drive
consisted of the Camelot Bstate; Homes valued from $34,000 to
CONDITIONAL USB $39,000; that although no development had taken place in the
PBRMIT IdO. 384 im~eediate vicinity of subject property, the Camelot development
(Continued) during the last year had been compietely developed north of
Westmont and east of West Street; that the Westmont area was one
af the most desirable areas in Anaheim; that they would like to
see it kept as single £amily development, since less than 20 acres
were left in the area for any single family;development in that area; and that if
other than singie family were proposed, property values of the Camelot Bstates and
adjacent property would be considerabiy decreased.
Mr. Alfred Cane, 1444 Wedgewood Drive, appeared before the Commission in opposition to
subject petition and stated that this was the third time that he has appeared opposing
various types of developments in the R-U, Residential Suburban area in which subject
p:operty was located; that his home was the third home built in the area; and at that
time it was~supposed that the entire area would remain for single family development;
that no evidence had been submitted which would substantiate the request for apartments
even though garden type apartments were being proposed, and that he would not like to
have the multiple family developmeat near his home.
Mr. Rose in rebuttal, stated that the proposed development would be garden type single
story; that subject property was too expensive for developmentfor single family.homes.
~ • . , ,,. , . ,.. ,, .. . . '~ .. ..
Commissioner Camp entered the Council Chamber at 10:20 P.M.
Tf~ HSARING WAS CL0.SHD.
A petition signed by 152 persons was read to the Commission opposing subject petition.
The Commission discussed the compatibility of the proposed development with the
surrounding area noting that subject property was a.portion of only a small part of the
land still available for development for res?~zntial suburban use; that the petitioner
had not presented any justification for changing of the zone; and that the proposed ..
multiple family development would be in conflict with the use as projected on the
proposed General Plan.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 684, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-85 be denied based on findings. (See
Resolution Book.) ~
Commissioner Gauer in offering the foregoing resolution stated that the proposed
multiple family development would be incompatible to the zoning established in close
proxi~ity to sabject property which ttas primarily developed for single family
residential use and one family suburban development.
Coamissioner Chavos in seconding the foregoing resolution~stated that subject petition
should be recommended for denial based on the fact that past Plaaning Commission and
City Council thinking~to safeguard the development of property adjacent to the R-0
developmen~ a~•it was reflected on the•proposed C~neral Plan~:.by~'pro~eCtituj~'lbwL~deJnsit~ - -_
residential suburban development.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COhA~lI3SI0NHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos~, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOH3: COMMISSIOIJffitS: None. ~
ABSHNT: CObNlISSIONBEtS: None. ,
Commissioner Camp_offered Resolution No. 685, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to deny Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 384, based on~findings. CSee Resolution Hook.)
On roll call the.foregoing resolution was,passed~,bY the~following,vote:~ "~ ~~
AYBS: CONAfISSIONBRS> Allred, Camp,•Chavos,~Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, perry, 3ides.
NQE3: COI~AlISSIONffitS: None.
ABSHNT: COAAlISSIONBRS: None.
{
1
.. ____.'__.~_ ,____~ , .
\ . -.`.•__'.~~_ _ ~ . ..
... :,,__ '."_~ . . ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ,,. ~r-~.-- . .. . ..._._..._ __'
~~ ~
, ° - ,-
i •
-. ----- - .•~
~, ~ :e
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 1~, 1963, Continued: 1468
i RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ARLO RAY WILLIAMS, 3219 Bali Road, Anaheim,_.
~ N0. 62-63-86 and California, ~'lwners Thomas 'Needa and He Ross Lewis, 3386 Ke.ys Lane,
i Anaheim, Caliiornia, Agentss property described ass A rectangulax.
~ CONDITIONAL USE parcel of land having a frontage of 134 feet on the north side.cf
PERMIT N0. 392 Ball Road, and •a depi:h of 295 feet, the easterly boundary of sub~ect
'~ property being approximately 273 feet west of the centerline.of
Western Avenue, and further described as 3219':B?a~11;Ro~de Property presently classified
as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE. -
~ REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE
REQUESTHD USE: CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STORY PLANIVED MUL'TIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPNfENT.
Mr. Ross Lewis, agent for the pet±iioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that
he was available to answer any questions the Comeiission might•have.
Mr. John Simpson, 3309 Deerwood Drive, representing the Westridge Homeowners Association,.
appeared before the Commisslon and stated that he did not oppose~subject petition:.hu~.
requested that the Commission consider requiring the zoning code xaquirsments and standar~s,
that a small single fami~.y residential tract existed to the north of subjec.t property and
it was hoped that the Coaunission would give the home owners some considexatian._..__.. .
. _. ..... . . . .. . ~
The Commission reviewed the plot plans, noting the reco~anded.changes in order to pro- !
v:de adequate trash truck access, that the proposed development was substantially in ?
accordance with the Planning Commission's thinking as psojected on. the pxoposed General )
Plan, and that if carports were constructed, the requirement.of a six foot masonry wall `
could be incorporated into the rear portion of the proposed carponts. ~
THE FIEARING WAS CLOSED. • t
~
Coaunissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 686, Series 1962-63, and moved for its ~
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Craig,.to.r.ecommend to the City Counci2 -
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-86 be approved,.subject to conditions. ?
(See Resolution Book) 1
i
The foregoing rosolution was passed by the following vote: j
~~
A1lESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Craig, GaUer, Mungall, Pebley, Persy, Sides. ~
NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. I
~ ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONHRS: Camp. ;
~
~ Co~mnissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 687, Series 1962-63, and moved £or its passage '•
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~
No. 392, sub3ect to conditions.(See Resolution Book) . i
The foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ ~
, i
AYESs COMMISSIOI~RS: Allred, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: None. ~
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS~ Camp. I~
RECLASSIFIC•ATION - PUBLIC tiBARING. JOHN AVEMARIA, 1035 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim,
Nn_ ~~-~3-88 and California, Ownarf property described as: A rectangular parcel
of land having a frontage of 72 feet on the north side of Romneya
VARIANCE N0. 1555 Drive and a depth of 102 feet, the easterly baundary of said property
being approximately 275 feet west of the centerline of Robin Street,
and further described as 1035 West Romneya Drive. Property presently
classified as R-A, RESIDENfIAL AGRICULTIfRAL, .ZOIJE.~ .
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEM'IAL~ ZONE.
ReQl1ESTED VARIANCE: WAIVE SIDE AND REAR YARD REQUIREI~NTS.
f: ~-_...~.....,..,,w.,.._,._... -----,-~------- -- __ .----._-__-__._
~. • - , - .-~ . ~ ~...~.-,.~ . _ ..__.
~ ,-
~
i •
1 ,', A
~-i
I
V
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION; March 16, 1963, Continueds
1469
RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. John Avemaria, the petitioner, appeared before the Commissi.un,
N0. 62-63-88 and and stated that sub~ect development would be single story constr.uction,
and the requested reclassification was needed to convert a singl.e -.......
VARIAI~E N0.1555 family dwelling into a two-family duplex, that property in close prnx-
imity and adjacent to subject proper.ty was zoned for multiple..family._...
development, and that he proposed to constrnct the single stor-y-addi.:.
tion to wi±hin six feet of the west property line abutting the school proper.ty,.and to
within eleven feet of the multiple family development to the nosth of. subject praperty.
Chairman Mungall inquired whether there was anyone in the Council Chamber opposing subject
petition, and received no reply.
TIiH k~ARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans and noted that the proposed General Plan projected
mult!}~le family development for subject property.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resol.ution No. 688, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the•City Council that
~'etition for Reclassification No. 62-63-88 be approved, sub~ect to conditions(See
Resolvtion Book) . ......
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following.votee
AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Sides.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE.
ABSENTs COMMISSIOIVERS: NOIVE.
Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at 10:55 P.M.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 689, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance
No. 1555, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cail the foregoing resolution was pas'sed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred. Camp, Csaig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sidese
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: P~ONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC IiEARING. FRANK G. TURLEY, 2100 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
N0. 62-63-89 California, Owner; ROBERT L. WEXLER, 929 Spring Str~et, Anaheim,
California, Agent~ requesting that property described as: A
rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 100 feet on the south of Ball Road,
and a depth of 300 feet, the westerly boundary of said property being approximately
575 feet east of the centerline Beach Boulevard, and further described as 2944 West
Ball Road be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDEMIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ( R-3, Multiple
Family Residential, zoning pending) to the C-1, IVEIGf~BORH00D CONW~RCIAL, ZONE, to
construct a neighborhood commercial facility on subject property.
Mr. Robert Wexler, agent for the pe~itioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
commercial developmant was proposed ~or subject property which would round out the
neighborhood commercial zoning from the westerly property line of the Stanton Community
Church to the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Ball Road, that the proposed
commercial develo,ament had been reviewed with the City Council~and the Council suggested
the project be submitted for the Commission to consider at a public hearing and reclassi-
fication. Mr. Wexler further stated that it was proposed to have a two foot landscaped
planter area across the entire frontage of sub3ect property extending across the already
commercial property abutting to the west, although there had been no requirement for said
landscaping at the time the westerly property had been devaloped commercially, that
after discussion with the church elders regarding a masonry wall to separate the proposed
1
~ ~ ; .. ,.~ .-M_.. .
~
~__ ;
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COM9utISSION, March 18, 1963, Continueds 1470
RECLASSIFICATION - commerciaZ development from the church property to the east,.the ..
N0. 62-63-89 church decided to recommend construction of said wall stepped down.
(Continued) in the front and a height of six feet to the rear of .the.property.,. -
for which the petitioner would assume the responsibi~,it~r.of_cons•txuction,
that air-conrlitioning units.would_be.completely enclosed totiide said units.fxnm.vie~ fsom
the street, and that the church would be given permission L'o use the~parking.faciLit3e.s
of the commercial development during their services. _ ...
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 11s00 p.m.
The Coimriission reviewed the revised plans which had been submitted at the mee.ting, and
indicated this was Revision No. 1: Exhibit 1; that..the.petitioner shauld ob.tain..and
submit a written agreement with the Stanton Community.Church which indicatad .the.exaat
height of the proposed masonry wall,as well as,their approval prior to the.svb3ect peti-
tion being heard by the City Council. .. ,
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 11:00 P.Id.
THE [~ARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 690,.Series 1962-63, and moved fox. its.passage
and.adoption, seconded by Commissioner Craig, to recommend .to the City..Council, that
Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-89 be approved, subject to..conditions. (See
Resolution Book) . _.. . . .
Commissioner Allred in offering the foregoing resolution stipulated that as a finding.
it be noted that the Commission recouunends tb the.City Council that..Petition.£or..Reclass-
ification No. 61-62-I24 pending on subject property be texminated.upon...the completion
of an ordinance approving subject reclassification~ furthex.that-caaditinns applicable-
in the approval of subject petition be the requirement tha~t.the-petitioaex..ab.tain ~'
written agreement from the church abutting to the east of.subjact..proper#y.which erould
stipulate the agreed height for the masonry wall, and•that all air-GOnditioning units
be campletely enclosed to hi~ said units fr.om vier~ .from .the •street. -
On roll-call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol,lowing vote:
AYESs CONU~IISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Sides.
NOES: CO~r1I5SI0NERS: NONE.
ABSBNT: COhAfISSI0N8RS: NOI~ffi.
,y
Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 11:~5 P.M.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. WILLIAM G. ELLIS,~3934 Gardenia, Long Beach, California,
N0. 62-63-90 Umer; Bill Findley, B00 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California,
Agents requesting that property described as~ A rectangular parcel
of land having a frontage of 78 feet on the west side ~f Gilbert Street.
and a depth of 132 feet, the southerly boundary of said property being 395 feet plus or
minus, north of Lincotn Avenue be reclassified from.the R-A, RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL,
ZONE to.the R-2, T~YO FAMILY RESIDHNTIAL, ZONE to construct a duplex on sub~ect property.
Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at .11~05 p.m.
Mr. Bill Findley, ageqt for the petitioner, appeared before the Coumaission and stated
that the petitionar v~as proposing a de~elopment for-s.ub~ect.proper.ty which would '• - '
be pro3ecting~a more:prac~ic,al use, that:sub~ect'pr.operty~ had previt~ws~ly~been;zoned
for multiple family development, but that this zoning had been exercised, and that the
petitioner propoaed to construct a masonry wall on the north and south boundaries of '
sub3ect property, but thought it impractical to construct a similar wall on the west
side, since a chain link fence already separated the school property from sub~ect propert~.
Mr. Bernard Weisnner, 125 North Gilbert Street, appeared before the Commission 3n..opposi-
tion to subject petition and stated that sub3ect property Mas imanediately to the narth
of his property,that the proposed deVelopment was nat aompatible with the other six
single family homes in the area, that if sub~ect~petitioa.was considered'favorably by
the Comm3ssion that the drive proposed for the sduth..side of.subjec.t property be moved
to the north side, because it Mould be located immedi,ately adjacent to.their bedrooms,
and their sleep would be disturbed by the arrival of cars late in the evening, and
that the Commission shoulil require a six foot masonry wall to assure their privacy.
, ~ -- - ~ • . ._ _ .__.
. _ .. Yu. _ .. ._ . . .t . . . . . . . . . 1 . . ~~.::-~ w~-
~ •
,
i
~ .
. ,.
,
1 ~
_. .
I , {_.' ~~ °'
I
; .
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COW~lISSION, March 1$r 1•9~i3, Cor~tinuedi 1471
RECLASSIFICATION - pQr. Weissner then inquired whether the Commission didn't consider
j NO~' `62-63-90 the proposed "spot zoniag," development.
i (Cdntinued).
? The Commission reviewed t~~ ;,:~.t plans and nated that the petit3.onea
I proposed a perimeter drive around sub~ect property with the carports being coastructed
f to.the rear of subject property, and that two•.single stony anitswere being prcpcsed.
E The Commission noted that the requested classification was 3n lfne w.ith the Co~ission's
i thinking as it was projected on the proposed General Plan.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 11e10 p.m.
Co~mnissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 691, Series 1962-63, and moved for i.ts passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides, to•.recohunend to the City Council. that
Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-90.be approved, sub3ect to conditions'. (See
Resolution Book) . ....
Commissioner Camp in offering the foregoing resolution.stated~that a six faot.ma~onxy
wall abutting to the west of subject property would not be.required.because.a.chain'
link fence was already in existance which would serve to 9eparate sub~ect property from
the~school property.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followfng.votQ~
AYES: C01~9u1ISSI0NHRS: Allred, Camp, ~havos, Craig, Gauer, tdungall, Pebley,Sides.
NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSTAINi COMIeISSIONERSi Perry.
ABSENTe CCYAdISSIONERS: NOI~.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC E~ARING. FRANK MULLER, 10850 Rivergide Dr~ve, Suite 507,
IV~. 62-63-91 and North Hollywood, California, Owner~ Clifton Wolfe, 629 South Spring
5treet, Los Angeles 14, California, Agent. Property described as:
CONDITIONAL USE An L-shaped portion of land consisting of four parcels hsving a
PERMIT N0. 396 frontage of 660 feet, plus or minus, on the South side of Crescent
Avenue, and having a frontaqe of 630 feet, plus or minUS, on the
TENTATIVfl MAP OF east side of Brookhurst Street, the southerly boundary of sub~ect
TRACT N0. 5053 proparty bein~ approximately 1,270 feet south of the centerline of
Cresce~t Avenue, and the easterly boundary being approximately
2,035 feet east of the centerline of Brcokhurst Street. Present classification of
subJect property R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION~ R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
REQUESTED USE~ Construct a one and two-story planned multiple family
residential development with cerports, waive one story
height limltation.
Sub~ect tract, lac~ted on the east side of Brookhurst Street, approximately
660 feet south of Crescent Avenue, and covering approximately 30 acres, is
proposed for subdivision into 105 R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zoned lots.
Subject tract was conaidered in conjunction with Reclassification No. 62-63-91 and
Conditiongi Use Permit No, 396.
Mr. James Brownly, 205 Aveaue "I", ReSoado Beach, developer:of the sub,ject property,
appeared before the Cummission aad stated that the developer proposed a new concept
for a large recreational area, the size of two football fielda, that they proposed
to attract a better type of stabled ~esidebts iato the City of Anaheim; that the
proposed developmeat was first though~ of ia which proposed a permanent maintenance
program for the entire deve2opment; aad tha~t plaus as preseated were for the aoutherly
30 acrea with possible later developmept of the northerly 10 acres requeated.
I
..._ __-__ _~__. _~.._--
, ----•-__.-~----------~---
• - ---- /
- = t6 .~._.-._. ~ . _ ..
!~"
C_~
~_J
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COl~A4ISSI0N, March 18, 1963, Continued:
1472
RHCLASSIPICATION - Mrs. Albert Bircher, 8761 Bircher Street, appeared before the
N0. 62-63-91 Commission and stated that she was happy that the one dairy would
CONDITIONAL USH ~ eliminated in the area because of its disgraceful appearance;
PBRMIT N0. 396 that she and her husband had lived in the area for forty years; and
if subject development were approved with the maaoarq walis as
TBNTATIVH MAP OF suggested by the Interdepartmental Committee dnd~~Plannipg;;Department;
1RACT N0. 5053 that the Commission require an opening at the present location of
(CONTINUBD) the opening in the fence so that she would have ingress and egress
from her property to deliver supplies in order to maitttain units,which
she ownS~ as rentals; that a private road had been dedicated and
private easement across said private road were purchased by all
property owners having access to it, but that the easement no longer existed.
Mr. Don YF~llis, owner of the Yellis Dairy adjacent to subject property, appeared
before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated that he had been a
bonded milk producer in Anaheim since 1928, that he had been located at the present
location since 1948; that he tried to maintain the premises on which his dairy :,..
was loCated s.o~tkatit would not be a detriment to the health and welfare of the
residents in the area; that a very recent health inspection had been made of his
property which had received one of the highest ratings of any dairy in the vicinity;
that he could not understand why any one would wish to develop mutliple family
residential area adjacent io his cow corrals which would be abuiting subject property;
that the odors from the dairy, although he tried to keep it as clean as possible, would
be offeasive to residents living there; and further described the various workings of a
large dairy, noting that many of the things might be offensive to residents of a
proposed multiple family development; that they had 400 head of cattle and bred.'and:
raised 260 calves for replacement purposes each year; that at the time he purchased
property he was informed that this property would remain either agricultural or
manufacturing or proposed for development of manufacturing, that manufacturing concerns
were located to the east of subject property; that the Health Department required that
dwellings be kept of specified distance away from animals; that although he did aot
intend to run the dairy indefinitely, his children expressed a desire to continue with
the business if at all feasible; aad that with the proposed development any noises,
odors, etc., that might eminete from the dairy might be construed as offensxve or a
nuisance and therefore might cause him to terminate his business as a dairy farmer.
The Commission compl3men~Eed the owners of the Yellis Dairy that they kept a clean and
presentable dairy, that although at the time the dairy was located at its present
site; it had not been anticipated to be other than raanufacturing development; the
progress of developtient which Anaheim had enjoyed during the past ten (10) years might
effectively create a change in the original zoning of subject property; and that the
Health and Safety Code required that no building.which.housed animals could be located
closer than 40 feet from a door or windotv.of any residenceo
Mr. Clifton Woife, agent for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner had purchased
150 acres which included the Richfield Oil Company property; that he had been trying
for a number of years to interest persons in developing subject area for manufactuzing
use; and had been unsuccessful; that 10 years ago there was no manufacturing located
in the area; that the Yellis property could easily be sold at a large price for
multiple family development, but couid not be developed for manufacturing use; that the
nearest residential development wonid be approximatel.y 80 to 1-00 feet from the masonry
wall; and that considerable recreation facilities would be projected for the proposed
development which would be a asset to the Citq.
Mr. Robert Polzi, 418 North Aladdin Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated
that he was not sure whether he opposed sub3ect petition or whether he was seekiag
informution; that he wouid prefer single f.amily development for subject property; that
the proposed rentals suggested by the developer of $200 per month seemed hard to believe;
that the residents of such a devel.opment might be considered mcre trancient in nature
depending upon contracts received by the manufacturing concern, and inquired what type
of assurance would be given to gusranty that the multiple family development would be
maintained as suggested.
--- - - .~..:., ~ "..'- .' .
~ J
~`~
;
~
i
1
~
. ;4 ;.
~
~
I
I
i
~ ~
MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING CQhAtISSION, March 18, 1963, ~ontinued:
1473
RBCLASSIPICATION ~• Mr. Wolfe stated that impounds in the covenants must be paid as
N0. 62-63-91 though they were taxes, these impounds would guaranty up &eep of
the multiple family developmeat,
CONDITI Q~1AL USB
PffitMIT N0, 396 Commissioner Chavos inquired o1 Depnty Ci:y Attorney Purman Roberts,
what safeguards were written in the Anaheim Municipal Code which
TBATfATIVB MAP OP would protect the City by enforcement of up keep of any proposec~
TRACT N0. 5053 multiple family development.
(CONTIh'UED)
~
~
~
M;. Roberts stated that there were laws gov•rning this in the Code
and enforcement could be made through lawsuits by the City.
Commissioner Craig inquired if the Code might force the dairy existing to the northwest
of subject property out of existence, Mr. Roberts replied that a fifty-three (53) foot
right-of-way setback was required, that evea though the developer was aware of odors
eminating from the dairy, that if sufficient cnmplaints were received it would be
considered a public nuisance, thus altering the compatibilitq of the dairy to the
proposed development.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
Commissioner Perry stated that the Commission~had•a difficult task in determiniag what
wou:.d be best for the City; that it was difficult to rule against a resident of the
City whc was doing business which was for the benefit of the children of the City, but
with progress sometimes the Commission would have to rule as to the land use compatibility;
that the developer stated that if the owners of the dairy to the north wish to sell,
they could rPCeive more than a reasonable return for tlieir investment; and that the
proposed development would be compatibile to the area.
Commissioner Yerry offered Resolution No. 692, Series 1962-6~, and moved for it~
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Copncil
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-91 be approved subject to conditions.
(Spe Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Perry in offering the foregoing resolution stated that in the~approval of
subject pet~tion the Commission at a future work session would consider a change to the
proposed to the General Plan to reflect multiple family development for subject property,
as well as, an additional 20 acres on which the dairy .vas located fo~ multiple family
development; and that by considering this change to tFz proposed General Plan, this
would effectively terminate any future western expansion of industrial development in
this area.
Jn ;oll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONSRS: Allr.ed, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gaqer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Sides.
NOHS: COhAlISSIONHRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhatISSIONHRS: None,
Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 693, Series 1962-63, and moved for its passage
and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp to grant Yetition for Conditioual Use
Pexmit No. 396, subject to conditions. (3ee Resolution Book.)
Commissioner Perry in offering the foregoing resolution stated that a Finding should be
mad~ which wouid waive the single story height fimitation within 150 feet of R-A,
Residential Agricultural, Zone, property, and then under the authority granted the
Commission, Sectien 18.64,070, that carports be constructed in li~•, of garagES.
T.ie forego:ng resolution was passed by the foliowing vote;
AYHS: COMMI3SIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, M~:, ~., Pebley, Peri:y, Sides.
NQBS: COMbIISSI0N8RS: None.
AB3BNT: COhAlISSION~t3: None.
C `
\....
'----._.... __. .,,,,__._.,.__ _...
... . _ ~ ~--
~
- -- ...__.._.~_ °I! . : .... _. _ . __.
r ~l
MIN[1TE3, CITY PLANNING COhAlI3SION, March 1$; 1963', Contiaued: 1474
TSNTATIVE MAP OF - Subject tract was considered in conjunctioa with Reclassification
TRACT N0. 5053 No. 62-63-91 and Conditional Use Permit No. 396. The Interdepart-
mental Committee recommendations were reviewed by the Commission.
' Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approee T_ea~atiee Map of Trsct No. 5053, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more than one sub-
division, each subdivision thereof shail be submitted in tentative form for
approval.
2. Provision of a modified cul-de-sac at the terminus of Valley Street,
Aladdin Street, Bernice Street and Caroi Street subject to the approval of the
City of Anaheim Bngineer, with the engineering by the City and the construc-
tion by the developer.
3. Dedication of vehicular access rights to Brookhurst Street except at the
street openings.
4. A predetermined price for Lot "A" shall be calculated and an agreement for
dedication entered into between the developer and the City of Anaheim prior
to approval of the final map. The cost of Lot "A" shail include land and a
proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvements.
This condition applies to the north line of "B" Street only, where the
one foot wide Lot "A" is located.
5. All interior streets shall be provided with tree wells at approximately fifty
(50) foot intervais as determined by the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance,
prior to the approval of all tract improvements.
6. Drainage shail be handled in a manner which is satisfactory to the City
Hngineer.
7. The masonry ~vall on "A" Street and Carol 3treet shali be six (6) inches
thick, six (6) feet high and located adjacent to the property line. The
curb face shall be four (4) feet from the property line. The parkway, from
back of the curb to the wall, shall be full concrete. "A" Street and
Carol Street shall be a~ifty-four (54) foot dedication.
Commissioner 3ides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~~
~
~ .
_~_....,.,...~,...,,-. ''~
.~ _-_-~I----- „~: __.._ . .. _ ..___.~_
~ ~
f,.___...
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continued: 1475
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
RECOMI~NDATIONS TEPR'ATIVE TRACT MAP No. 5075, City of Buena Pdrk. Subject tract,
located on the east side of Western Avenue, approximately 663 feet
south of Filmore DriVe, and cover.:ng approximately 3 acres, is
proposed for subdivision into 8 R-2, Zoned lots.
:~
1
;
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the location of sub~ect
tract, noting that there was existing R-2 zoning to the east and north, together with
single family subdivision development to the south of sub3ect property. ;
The Commission ncted that the proposed development rounded out an area of R-2, dev~l-
opment, and that subject property was located within an area projected for medium
density residential development on the proposed General Plan. ~
;
Commissior,ar Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the Buena ?ark Planning Commission
that Tentative Tract Map No. 5075 be approved. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. '
i
ITEM N0. 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 338, Richard and Lucy Anthony, 1200 West
Ball Road, Anaheifi, California, Ownersf CONSTRUCTION OF A COFFEEm
SHOP, RESTAURANT, AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE at 1050 West Ball Road.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter from Mr. Richard Anthony which requested
approval of revised plot plans for subject propertye ,
It was noted by the Commission that the revised plans incorporated an improved elevation
and the front lanscaped area had been reduced from.20.feet to.1Q £eet.
Commissioner Craig offered a motion approving Revision 1: Exhibi.t 1 and 2, as.revised
plans for Conditional Use'Permit No. 338, on the grounds that the service station-to.the .
west, and the existing motel to the east have a very small amount o~ landscaping, and ...
that the reduction from 20 feet ta 10 feet on the front property line wou1~9 be more• .
ec{uitable with the existing developments.t~.the and to the west. Comc,issioner Gamp
seconded the mot'ion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 3
Orange County Use Variance No. 4957, Dix Leasing Corporation,
10680 Douglas Rcad, Anaheim, California~ reyuesting modifi~•ation.
of Conditior, No. 2 in approving.use of sub~ect property fo•r truck
storage and repair, said condition requiring street improvements
for pouglas Street.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented te the Commission subject use variance, stating
that the Orange County Planning Commission in its approval of said variance stipulated
Conclition No. 2 as follows:
"2. .Douglas Strest, ~s dedicated, be improv~d to Cpunty standards, including
insta2lation of concrete curbs, gutters, drive approaches, and paving from
the gutters to the existing edge of pavement. Improvement plans shall be
submitted for these improvements for approval by the Road Commissionen."
Kreidt further stated that the City of Anaheim frequently permits the posting of
~ond in lieu of st=eet improvements under certain conditions.
pnissioner Sides offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning
unissio, that if the requested modification to Condition No. 2, under Use Variance
4957 was considered favorably, tnat the posting of a bond be required, and said
id being adequate to, insure the installation of street improvements when required
the County or, if in the future, subject area is annexed by the City of Anaheim.
unissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
.._.,_" _T-r~: _..._ , . . _ . .._
~J •
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMhtISSION, March 18, 1963, Cqntinued: 1476
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 4
RECOMA~NDATIONS TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4958 (Revision No. 1)
(Continued) DEVELOPER: GI+RLO, INC., 921 West Beverly Boulevard, Montebello,. .
California. ENGINEER:. Kemmerer Engineering Company, Inc., 145 North
Painter Avenue, Whittier, Californiae Subject tract, located on the
north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, approximately 623 feet westerly
of Imperial Highway and covering approximately 45.3 acres, is pro-
posed for subdivision into 180.R-1, Single.Femily Residential, Zoned lots.
Zoning Coord,inator Maitin Kreidt reviewed with the Co~mnission the previous action taken
on sub3ect trar,t raap by the Anaheim Planning Cortunissioq in conjunction with the processing
of said tract by the developer in the City of Anaheim.
Cammissioner Craig offered a motion to recommend to. the Orange County.Planning Commission
that Tentative Map of Tract No. 4958 (Revision No. 1) be app.roved subject to the following
conditions:
1. Requirement that shouid this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tenta•tive form for approval.
2. Disposal of the drainage shall be by provisions into the Santa Aria River, with the
approval of the Orange County Flood Control District and the Qrange County Water
District.
3. At locations where the property ownership is contiguous to Santa Ana Canyon Road,
the developer shall install standard street improvementst and at street outlets
at crossings of the Santa Ana Valley Irrigation, easements shall be provided.
4. If subject tr.act is not developed in its entirety, the developer shall provide
utility easements as is necessary to provide service as.required by the City
of Anaheim.
5. That the alignment of the Riverside Freeway and access to Santa Ana Canyon Road
shall be sub3ect to the approval of the~State Division of Highways.
Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 1
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 328 - Hospital for Geriatrics and Rehabilitation
MISCELLANEOUS Resolution No. 659, Series 1962-63
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the l;ommission from Abraham Shapiro
Associates, signed by Aaron A. Graham, A.I.A. regarding the amendmend of Condition
No. 8 of Resolution No. 659, upon which Conditional Use Permit N~. 328 for the establish-
mant of a geriatrics and rehabilitation hosoital was appro.yod on the west side of Knott
Avenne approximately 500 feet south of Lincoln Avenne.
The Commission discussed the drainage problem of sub3ect property9 the existing single
family deVelopment to the west, and the approval of multiple family development south
of sub3ect property.
Commissioner Ghavos uffered a motion to clarify the intent of Condition No. 8 of
Resolution No. 659, Series 196~-63, to wit:
A six (6) fGOt masonry wall, measured from the finished grade leval of sub3ect
property shall be i~stalled on the west and south boundaries, prior to Final
Building Inspection.
Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~~" ~ ~- ~
~
>
`#AINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 18, 1963, Continueds P477
CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 2
AND Proposed eddition to the Anaheim Municipal Code
MISCELLANEOUS R-E, Residential Estate, Zone
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed the•steps which wer~ necessasy to estab-
lish an interim ordiriance by the City Counci.l, .informing;.the CO~mlission..that it would
be neceseary that the Commission set for publ3c heaxing..t~e proposed amendment to.the
Ar;aHeim Municipal Code, Title 18 for the establishment of a A-E, Residential Estate, Zone.
Mr.~ROberts further explained that the establishment o£ an•inte~im ordinance did ~vt
require a public hearing, and that it would be in effect for one• yeax, at until sU~
time as the Commission, through public. hearing recommended to the City Council the~~,
establishment of the R-E, Residential Estate, Zone. '~'
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to direct the Planning Commission Secretary to
set for public hearing at the April 1, 1963 Commission meeting, and to post the appro-
priate notices and advertise sa.id hearing in the newspaper. Commissioner Camp seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.. •
ADJOURNN~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a
. motion to adjourn the r.s~etiag. Commissioner Pebley seconded the motion.
• MOTION CARRIED.
. The meeting adjourned at 11:54 0'Clock P.M.
~ Respectfully submitted,
ANN KREBS, Secretary //n~~
ANAHEIM PJ,ANNING COMMISSICEN
~..__--~--
~
~
i
t
i
I
, ~ ~ .